NationStates Jolt Archive

This generation question:

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-jesus-wrong-about-his-second-coming.html


Tackling this bit separately.

In the context of the fact that Jesus is ALREADY in violation of the 'rules' of prophecy - i.e. he spoke to change the Levitical Law, the argument over the word is evidence of his false prophecy.

What you presented shows two commonly heald 'explanations' - both, while commonly held - are ALSO contradicted by scriptural content.

The third argument - that 'genea' refers to the Jewish people, instead of 'this generation' has several problems of it's own.

First - you have to read 'genea' out of regular context - you have to argue that 'genea' means something different here, than it does elsewhere. WHen Jesus talks about 'generation of vipers', he's referring to a chronological generation. Scripturally, 'generation' has meaning - and arguing that - in ONE case - there is a different meaning, seems an awful lot like fudging the data.

Second - not only does one have to plead special exception to an already breached form - one has to plead special exception to regular use. In scripture 'genea' is not translated as a synonym for genos.

So - not only do you have to claim that genea means something different to EVERY other time that 'generation' appears, you ALSO have to claim that it means a different word, even though it is NEVER used synonymously within the text.

The article you link to claims that this can be explained by differences between Aramaic and Greek... which is a weak argument, because it is the Greek that scripture has preserved, so any argument about Aramaic meaning is speculation at best, wishful thinking at worst. Similarly - you have to believe that God does NOT protect his work, if you are going to argue that 'genea' is a mistranslation of the Aramaic.

The other mechanism the article uses, is to claim that, in other cases where genea is translated as generation, in MOST of them, it COULD be translated as 'genos'. Sorry - but that's a bullshit argument. Why suspect that genea is wrong in every case, where EVERY other use of genea is appropriate?

Only reason? Because it would allow wiggle room on this ONE point.

And there's the problem - make the Word of God wrong in a hundred cases, just to make the Word of God right in ONE case?

Third - in my opinion, the most damning: In this chapter (the reason I used Luke, as opposed to either of the other occassions this prophecy is repeated) it is absolutely contextually clear who 'genea' must refer to.

He says:

Luke 21:1-3 "And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all"

He says: "I say unto you" - it is clear who the intended audience is. Prophetic or not, this chapter is being spoken to a specific audience, that are right there, talking with him.

Luke 21:6 "these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down..."

He says "which ye behold..." which is again, a reference to the things that will be cast down. The Second Temple wasn't yet destroyed, and it IS now, so this doesn't work as prophecy if it is intended to refer to anything AFTER about 70 AD... because the audience would be wrong. They wouldn't be capable of seeing 'these things'.

[indent]Luke 21:32 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled."

He says "this generation..." but the framing of it is his audience. He doesn't invoke the church. He doesn't invoke the Jewish people. Neither of those are justified in the CONTEXT. The ONLY group that is justified in the context, is the same group that is justified in the use of the word 'genea', and in the continuation of the use of 'generation' according to established scriptural precedence... that is... an actual, literal generation.


Ultimately, there is no GOOD reason for arguing that 'this generation' is wrong. Which means the prophecy is false.

The only argument that can be made, is not a logical one - it is to say that you KNOW that he wasn't a false prophet, and to change what is recorded to match what you know. And that is intellectually dishonest.

And - as I just demonstrated - it can't even be justified WITHIN the scope of scripture. In order for Jesus to be a true prophet, as recorded in the true word of god... the true word of god cannot be true. If Jesus is a prophet, the Bible is a lie.

So I had to go back an re-examine some my beliefs as results of reading your objections.


Which is good. Not just from an objective 'you should always question things' point of view, but froma specific Christian perspective.

According to scripture, some of Jesus' followers SAID they believed... and were found wanting. And some of them admitted doubts and were rewarded. The moral of the story is that doubt is honest, and is rewarded... and claims of faith are lipservice, until you analyse what those claims are BASED on.


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.


In my quest for truth, I have tried to examine as many alternatives as I could. My only comment on what you say, here, is - did you actually evaluate the contendors... or did you evaluate opinions?

Can you more accurately evaluate Christianity by reading the bible... or by observing/talking to/talking about Christians?

If you're not reading their scripture - you're judging them on opinion.

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.


Who are these 'bad guys', and how are they 'winning'?


Baha'i seems to have fewer but one critical one in my opinion. Jesus did say he was the only son.


Which PREsupposes that Christianity is right, which automatically makes Baha'i incompatible with your evaluation. How can you claim to be evaluating the religion when you are starting from an assumption that it's wrong?

It's worth noting - Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity is. In the Judeo-tradition, Christianity is the odd-man-out.

To be the counterpoint of Christianity one only needs look at its only document, the bible. If one breaks it into the old testament and the new testament both can be argued against. First the old testament, creation, joah living in the whale , and people living to 900 years old are only a few examples. The new testament is harder to poke at but still pokable. 1000 years before Jesus the Egyptians came up with Horus, a god born to a virgin, baptized in a river by anup the batist who was later beheaded, he healed the sick, the blind, and he cast out demons, had 12 disciples, raised asar(who's name translates to lazarus) from the dead, was crucified and rose from the dead.

Tackling this bit separately.

In the context of the fact that Jesus is ALREADY in violation of the 'rules' of prophecy - i.e. he spoke to change the Levitical Law, the argument over the word is evidence of his false prophecy.

What you presented shows two commonly heald 'explanations' - both, while commonly held - are ALSO contradicted by scriptural content.

The third argument - that 'genea' refers to the Jewish people, instead of 'this generation' has several problems of it's own.

First - you have to read 'genea' out of regular context - you have to argue that 'genea' means something different here, than it does elsewhere. WHen Jesus talks about 'generation of vipers', he's referring to a chronological generation. Scripturally, 'generation' has meaning - and arguing that - in ONE case - there is a different meaning, seems an awful lot like fudging the data.

Second - not only does one have to plead special exception to an already breached form - one has to plead special exception to regular use. In scripture 'genea' is not translated as a synonym for genos.

So - not only do you have to claim that genea means something different to EVERY other time that 'generation' appears, you ALSO have to claim that it means a different word, even though it is NEVER used synonymously within the text.

The article you link to claims that this can be explained by differences between Aramaic and Greek... which is a weak argument, because it is the Greek that scripture has preserved, so any argument about Aramaic meaning is speculation at best, wishful thinking at worst. Similarly - you have to believe that God does NOT protect his work, if you are going to argue that 'genea' is a mistranslation of the Aramaic.

The other mechanism the article uses, is to claim that, in other cases where genea is translated as generation, in MOST of them, it COULD be translated as 'genos'. Sorry - but that's a bullshit argument. Why suspect that genea is wrong in every case, where EVERY other use of genea is appropriate?

Only reason? Because it would allow wiggle room on this ONE point.

And there's the problem - make the Word of God wrong in a hundred cases, just to make the Word of God right in ONE case?

Third - in my opinion, the most damning: In this chapter (the reason I used Luke, as opposed to either of the other occassions this prophecy is repeated) it is absolutely contextually clear who 'genea' must refer to.

He says:

Luke 21:1-3 "And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all"

He says: "I say unto you" - it is clear who the intended audience is. Prophetic or not, this chapter is being spoken to a specific audience, that are right there, talking with him.

Luke 21:6 "these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down..."

He says "which ye behold..." which is again, a reference to the things that will be cast down. The Second Temple wasn't yet destroyed, and it IS now, so this doesn't work as prophecy if it is intended to refer to anything AFTER about 70 AD... because the audience would be wrong. They wouldn't be capable of seeing 'these things'.

[indent]Luke 21:32 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled."

He says "this generation..." but the framing of it is his audience. He doesn't invoke the church. He doesn't invoke the Jewish people. Neither of those are justified in the CONTEXT. The ONLY group that is justified in the context, is the same group that is justified in the use of the word 'genea', and in the continuation of the use of 'generation' according to established scriptural precedence... that is... an actual, literal generation.


Ultimately, there is no GOOD reason for arguing that 'this generation' is wrong. Which means the prophecy is false.

The only argument that can be made, is not a logical one - it is to say that you KNOW that he wasn't a false prophet, and to change what is recorded to match what you know. And that is intellectually dishonest.

And - as I just demonstrated - it can't even be justified WITHIN the scope of scripture. In order for Jesus to be a true prophet, as recorded in the true word of god... the true word of god cannot be true. If Jesus is a prophet, the Bible is a lie.

I was going with the futurist interpretation I must admit. I do not see the error in that statement. I do want to understand what is wrong with this if he talking about many years in the future?


I am including the whole thing so we can all look at it.

The Widow's Offering
1As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.[a] 3"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."
Signs of the End of the Age
5Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6"As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down."
7"Teacher," they asked, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?"

8He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them. 9When you hear of wars and revolutions, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away."

10Then he said to them: "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

12"But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13This will result in your being witnesses to them. 14But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17All men will hate you because of me. 18But not a hair of your head will perish. 19By standing firm you will gain life.

20"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

25"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

29He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

32"I tell you the truth, this generation[b] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

34"Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. 35For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 36Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man."

37Each day Jesus was teaching at the temple, and each evening he went out to spend the night on the hill called the Mount of Olives, 38and all the people came early in the morning to hear him at the temple.

Which is good. Not just from an objective 'you should always question things' point of view, but froma specific Christian perspective.

According to scripture, some of Jesus' followers SAID they believed... and were found wanting. And some of them admitted doubts and were rewarded. The moral of the story is that doubt is honest, and is rewarded... and claims of faith are lipservice, until you analyse what those claims are BASED on.


I have. and I was more concerned with the substance of the message.



In my quest for truth, I have tried to examine as many alternatives as I could. My only comment on what you say, here, is - did you actually evaluate the contendors... or did you evaluate opinions?


I have been meaning to get to this. The Veda alone might take a lifetime. i must admit I based them on opinion, Christian opinion but still opinion.



Can you more accurately evaluate Christianity by reading the bible... or by observing/talking to/talking about Christians?

If you're not reading their scripture - you're judging them on opinion.


Unfortunately I only know a handful of Hindus and the subject is difficult to bring up with out sounding nosey. I don't know any of the others. Jews I speak to regularly but again the subject is touchy, feelings get hurt etc.



Who are these 'bad guys', and how are they 'winning'?


The Devil and his crew. If one does nothing the Devil wins by default. The only time where default works against someone.


Which PREsupposes that Christianity is right, which automatically makes Baha'i incompatible with your evaluation. How can you claim to be evaluating the religion when you are starting from an assumption that it's wrong?


Again I was going on opinion. I have less difficulty with Bahai on first glances. That is me not my church/faith


It's worth noting - Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity is. In the Judeo-tradition, Christianity is the odd-man-out.

I would think, I personally have the most difficulty with Islam. Maybe because of lack of understanding. Maybe because I listen to experts/opinions. You could say I am slightly biased, I have made no claims otherwise. I stated my beliefs previously so I did admit my biases if I have any. I am a product of what I was taught. I think this verbal fencing match has helped me in many ways. Until recently I had trouble figuring why people have trouble with Christianity. When we started this i mostly objected to laying all this stuff and God's doorstep when it was Us that cause most of it acting on our own behalf. In some cases directly opposite the will and word of God.


P.S. thanks for the help with the quotes

To be the counterpoint of Christianity one only needs look at its only document, the bible. If one breaks it into the old testament and the new testament both can be argued against. First the old testament, creation, joah living in the whale , and people living to 900 years old are only a few examples. The new testament is harder to poke at but still pokable. 1000 years before Jesus the Egyptians came up with Horus, a god born to a virgin, baptized in a river by anup the batist who was later beheaded, he healed the sick, the blind, and he cast out demons, had 12 disciples, raised asar(who's name translates to lazarus) from the dead, was crucified and rose from the dead.


With regard to Jonah if it was a really big whale then why not. Here again we are not looking at a normal everyday occurrence. God did his thing. He also saved people in a furnace hot enough to burn to cinders the poor guard who had to open the door.

With regard to long lifespan we do see it begin to taper off, which each generation getting younger and younger. Is there any medical reason we could live to be that old?

With regard to the Egyptian thing I personally see this as nothing more than trying to discredit the Bible by saying it was made up.

With regard to Jonah if it was a really big whale then why not. Here again we are not looking at a normal everyday occurrence. God did his thing. He also saved people in a furnace hot enough to burn to cinders the poor guard who had to open the door.

With regard to long lifespan we do see it begin to taper off, which each generation getting younger and younger. Is there any medical reason we could live to be that old?

With regard to the Egyptian thing I personally see this as nothing more than trying to discredit the Bible by saying it was made up.

Actually, lifespans have gradually been getting longer, with a few exceptions (the current one being HIV-infested southern Africa).

Actually, lifespans have gradually been getting longer, with a few exceptions (the current one being HIV-infested southern Africa).

Sorry I was talking about the Bible starting around 900 and finally ending up around 120 - 100 years. I do agree with you in our day they do seem to be getting a little longer.

Sorry I was talking about the Bible starting around 900 and finally ending up around 120 - 100 years. I do agree with you in our day they do seem to be getting a little longer.

You do, of course, realize that those lengths in the bible are fictitious, right?

You do, of course, realize that those lengths in the bible are fictitious, right?

I don't think there is any reason to think they are untrue. I mean really why do we get old?

I don't think there is any reason to think they are untrue. I mean really why do we get old?

Chromosomes have unused DNA on the end. Every time a cell replicates, a bit of the DNA at the end is lost. After a certain number of replications, all the dummy DNA is gone, so they start losing real DNA. Eventually, they lose enough vital DNA that their organs shut down like Grandpa Ben's (he was 91).

Chromosomes have unused DNA on the end. Every time a cell replicates, a bit of the DNA at the end is lost. After a certain number of replications, all the dummy DNA is gone, so they start losing real DNA. Eventually, they lose enough vital DNA that their organs shut down like Grandpa Ben's (he was 91).

If you made that replication better? or Let's suppose that DNA was at the end was not lost or lost at a much, much slower rate. It would imply that we could go back there i am not sure how I am not cellular biologist but the theory holds.



Sorry for your loss. My Gramma was in her upper 80's, 86 I think. My Grandfather was much younger about 76, I think. On my Dad's side my Grandfather he died Christmas Eve he was only 50 something. If there is anything to learn from this it is. Don't waste your time, live well!

The best way to deal with aging is to edit the replicating procedure so no excess DNA is lopped off. Sure, there'd still be some minor aging (just as some people gradually pick up the occasional blemish or scar over time), and it won't stop disease and injuries (although it may help people survive them), but life spans could radically increase.

And thanks for your sympathy. Fortunately, I come form a long-lived family. on dad's side, grandpa Ben was 91 (as said) and grandma Helen was 70, while on mom's side, grandpa Lyon was 89 and grandma Gloria is 93 (and STILL LIVES!)

The best way to deal with aging is to edit the replicating procedure so no excess DNA is lopped off. Sure, there'd still be some minor aging (just as some people gradually pick up the occasional blemish or scar over time), and it won't stop disease and injuries (although it may help people survive them), but life spans could radically increase.

And thanks for your sympathy. Fortunately, I come form a long-lived family. on dad's side, grandpa Ben was 91 (as said) and grandma Helen was 70, while on mom's side, grandpa Lyon was 89 and grandma Gloria is 93 (and STILL LIVES!)

If it is meant to be found it will be. We are nothing but diligent. With regard to challenges the church will need to endure.

Cloning comes to mind

I am gong to say the next one even though I know we are way far off but here goes.

Cyborg / Artificial Life / Sentient Machines

It seems more and more we are headed that way. IRobot here we come.

With regard to the Egyptian thing I personally see this as nothing more than trying to discredit the Bible by saying it was made up.

Trying to discredit material... that wasn't written until thousands of years LATER?

I have been meaning to get to this. The Veda alone might take a lifetime. i must admit I based them on opinion, Christian opinion but still opinion.


'Christian opinion' is a bad source of information. You can't get an OBJECTIVE answer to questions about Islam by asking the Pope.

There's no reason why you shouldn't read the scripture of other faiths. Many sects will happily send you free translated material.


Unfortunately I only know a handful of Hindus and the subject is difficult to bring up with out sounding nosey.


This seems odd, given that Christians are instructed to witness. You can preach but you can't ask?


I don't know any of the others. Jews I speak to regularly but again the subject is touchy, feelings get hurt etc.


Why do feelings get hurt? Your own feelings shouldn't be getting hurt by their answers...


The Devil and his crew. If one does nothing the Devil wins by default. The only time where default works against someone.


Except that Original Sin suggests the 'default' works against ALL of us, according to God's own design, no?


I would think, I personally have the most difficulty with Islam.


Which, I'm afraid, is irrelevant.

Which approach you have 'trouble with' is no measure of which is right.


Maybe because of lack of understanding. Maybe because I listen to experts/opinions.


It might depends who your opinions are. If you listen to Bill O'Reilly for example...


You could say I am slightly biased, I have made no claims otherwise. I stated my beliefs previously so I did admit my biases if I have any. I am a product of what I was taught.


Which is an excuse, and one that you've already moved beyond, based on what you have said in your own posts.

We aren't the sum of what we are taught - we can move beyond.


I think this verbal fencing match has helped me in many ways. Until recently I had trouble figuring why people have trouble with Christianity.


Especially when (some) Christians make such a big fuss about 'being under attack' - while they hold all the power and determine the law.

'Christian opinion' is a bad source of information. You can't get an OBJECTIVE answer to questions about Islam by asking the Pope.

There's no reason why you shouldn't read the scripture of other faiths. Many sects will happily send you free translated material.


I agree.


This seems odd, given that Christians are instructed to witness. You can preach but you can't ask?


I could I suppose.


Why do feelings get hurt? Your own feelings shouldn't be getting hurt by their answers...


My feelings never get hurt. I don't have a problem explaining what and why I believe, to degree. Some you have to accept on faith and I will be the first to admit that. Not all cultures feel as I do. To some it is a very personal and private thing. Which make this forum a good thing. We wouldn't be here if at some level you didn't want this


Except that Original Sin suggests the 'default' works against ALL of us, according to God's own design, no?


Since I was not born a Catholic or it could be because I am shaky on this point. I have some degree of difficulty with Original Sin and I am still working through that.


Which, I'm afraid, is irrelevant.

Which approach you have 'trouble with' is no measure of which is right.


A valid point I suppose.


It might depends who your opinions are. If you listen to Bill O'Reilly for example...


I don't even like his program so I don't think I will be asking him anything.


Which is an excuse, and one that you've already moved beyond, based on what you have said in your own posts.


Yes it is an excuse. Christianity works best for me at this moment.


We aren't the sum of what we are taught - we can move beyond.


I am unfortunately. I try to keep an open mind, if that is even possible. You could almost say "Humans are the sum of what we are taught". They are a product of their lives experiences. If I am a "monster" it is because I learned to become a "monster". What is more the people around me let or sometimes even encouraged me to become a monster. You can rationalize by saying it because "I wasn't love enough as a kid" or because "I was not instructed in the right method". To some degree that may get you off the hook. At some point you chose to "pull the trigger" or ignore / reject grace.


Especially when (some) Christians make such a big fuss about 'being under attack' - while they hold all the power and determine the law.


I hope I didn't make a big fuss. I don't mind being challenged and see most of you are of the same mind.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090122.gif

My feelings never get hurt. I don't have a problem explaining what and why I believe, to degree. Some you have to accept on faith and I will be the first to admit that. Not all cultures feel as I do. To some it is a very personal and private thing. Which make this forum a good thing. We wouldn't be here if at some level you didn't want this


Your feelings never get hurt...

Which means that these investigations into the beliefs of others... end up with THEIR feelings hurt?

Why?

If you are just asking questions, how are you offending people? Or are you asking the questions - and then telling them they're wrong?


I am unfortunately. I try to keep an open mind, if that is even possible. You could almost say "Humans are the sum of what we are taught". They are a product of their lives experiences. If I am a "monster" it is because I learned to become a "monster". What is more the people around me let or sometimes even encouraged me to become a monster. You can rationalize by saying it because "I wasn't love enough as a kid" or because "I was not instructed in the right method". To some degree that may get you off the hook. At some point you chose to "pull the trigger" or ignore / reject grace.


You've just argued it both ways... that we ARE the sum of our teaching, and that we aren't.

I think it's pretty obvious we're not just the sum of what we are taught, because people convert from religion to religion all the time. Because people lose and gain faith. Because people change perspectives based on logical arguments, or good evidence.

Which means, while we are shaped by our learning, the things we encounter through our own senses also contribute. The things we encounter through our own THOUGHT also contribute.

I see you arguing that people 'choose' to 'reject grace'... how do you justify that?

I'm an Atheist. I was raised Christian, my family are Christian, my wife is Christian... I've read the scripture. But I can't believe it, where once I did. I didn't CHOOSE not to believe it - as I've said before, if I could CHOOSE, I'd BE a Christian, because my life would be much easier.

How are people 'choosing' to 'reject grace'?


I hope I didn't make a big fuss. I don't mind being challenged and see most of you are of the same mind.

It wasn't you I was referring to. Harking back to the Bill O'Reilly's of this world again, I guess. You're gaining some perspective on what it means to be outside of America's 'chosen' religion.

With regard to Jonah if it was a really big whale then why not. Here again we are not looking at a normal everyday occurrence. God did his thing. He also saved people in a furnace hot enough to burn to cinders the poor guard who had to open the door.

With regard to long lifespan we do see it begin to taper off, which each generation getting younger and younger. Is there any medical reason we could live to be that old?

With regard to the Egyptian thing I personally see this as nothing more than trying to discredit the Bible by saying it was made up.
what body of water was jonah in when he was swallowed by the whale?

what body of water was jonah in when he was swallowed by the whale?


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

According to the book of Jonah, he was the son of Amittai (meaning 'My Truth'). God orders Jonah to go to the city of Nineveh to prophesy against it "for their great wickedness is come up before me" [1]. Jonah seeks to flee from "the presence of the Lord" by going to Jaffa and sailing to Tarshish. A huge storm arises and the sailors, realizing this is no ordinary storm, cast lots and learn that Jonah is to blame. Jonah admits this and states that if he is thrown overboard the storm will cease. The sailors try to get the ship to the shore but in failing feel forced to throw him overboard, at which point the sea calms. Jonah is miraculously saved by being swallowed by a large fish specially prepared by God where he spent three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17). In chapter two, while in the great fish, Jonah prays to God in his affliction and commits to thanksgiving and to paying what he has vowed. God commands the fish to vomit Jonah out.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa
Jaffa Arabic: يَافَا‎, ArJaffa.ogg Yāfā (help·info);(Hebrew: יָפוֹ‎, Yafo; also Japho, Joppa) is an ancient port city believed to be one of the oldest in the world.[1]

Jaffa is located south of Tel Aviv, Israel on the Mediterranean Sea. Today it is part of the Tel Aviv-Yafo municipality.

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

According to the book of Jonah, he was the son of Amittai (meaning 'My Truth'). God orders Jonah to go to the city of Nineveh to prophesy against it "for their great wickedness is come up before me" [1]. Jonah seeks to flee from "the presence of the Lord" by going to Jaffa and sailing to Tarshish. A huge storm arises and the sailors, realizing this is no ordinary storm, cast lots and learn that Jonah is to blame. Jonah admits this and states that if he is thrown overboard the storm will cease. The sailors try to get the ship to the shore but in failing feel forced to throw him overboard, at which point the sea calms. Jonah is miraculously saved by being swallowed by a large fish specially prepared by God where he spent three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17). In chapter two, while in the great fish, Jonah prays to God in his affliction and commits to thanksgiving and to paying what he has vowed. God commands the fish to vomit Jonah out.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa
Jaffa Arabic: يَافَا‎, ArJaffa.ogg Yāfā (help·info);(Hebrew: יָפוֹ‎, Yafo; also Japho, Joppa) is an ancient port city believed to be one of the oldest in the world.[1]

Jaffa is located south of Tel Aviv, Israel on the Mediterranean Sea. Today it is part of the Tel Aviv-Yafo municipality.
oh

where is nineveh and tarshish?

oh

where is nineveh and tarshish?

Nineveh is in the fertile crescent (from Israel, north, east, and then south through Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan)

Dunno about Tarshish.

EDIT: Tarshish is probably another city with the name changed due to being in a diferent alphabet. Most likely it's Tarsus (southern coast of central Turkey) or Tyre (coast of southern Lebanon).

Nineveh is across the river from Mosul (northern Iraq).

Nineveh is in the fertile crescent (from Israel, north, east, and then south through Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan)

Dunno about Tarshish.

EDIT: Tarshish is probably another city with the name changed due to being in a diferent alphabet. Most likely it's Tarsus (southern coast of central Turkey) or Tyre (coast of southern Lebanon).

Nineveh is across the river from Mosul (northern Iraq).
hmmmm

why would you go there by boat? that doesnt make any sense does it?

oh *smack*

because he was going the other way

Your feelings never get hurt...

Which means that these investigations into the beliefs of others... end up with THEIR feelings hurt?

Why?

If you are just asking questions, how are you offending people? Or are you asking the questions - and then telling them they're wrong?


They usually respond along the lines of "Why do you want to know?"


You've just argued it both ways... that we ARE the sum of our teaching, and that we aren't.

I think it's pretty obvious we're not just the sum of what we are taught, because people convert from religion to religion all the time. Because people lose and gain faith. Because people change perspectives based on logical arguments, or good evidence.

Which means, while we are shaped by our learning, the things we encounter through our own senses also contribute. The things we encounter through our own THOUGHT also contribute.

I see you arguing that people 'choose' to 'reject grace'... how do you justify that?

I'm an Atheist. I was raised Christian, my family are Christian, my wife is Christian... I've read the scripture. But I can't believe it, where once I did. I didn't CHOOSE not to believe it - as I've said before, if I could CHOOSE, I'd BE a Christian, because my life would be much easier.

How are people 'choosing' to 'reject grace'?


Rejecting Grace.


For some it starts at an early age. First it may be because you were forced to go to church and some see it as a rebellion against their parents or possibly even the status quo.

For some an incident happen which causes them to fall away.

For some the world rushes in. We become bogged down in worldly concerns. You are going to college let's say and you have just enough time to study and work. You feel I can put this on hold for a while.

I would characterize you as not an atheist but an agnostic and a specific type. The doubter/challenger. No one wants you to accept things with Blind faith. You can't cite the Bible as well as you do without some level of belief.

It is tough to say without specific knowledge of your situation what the first Brick in the wall was.

Sometimes ideas come into conflict with other ideas. This creates confusion, uncertainty, unsteadiness.

For some it is their lifestyle which the cherish which comes into conflict with the church.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/index.cfm?recnum=2453

Refusing grace is not a new thing.





It wasn't you I was referring to. Harking back to the Bill O'Reilly's of this world again, I guess. You're gaining some perspective on what it means to be outside of America's 'chosen' religion.

I am gaining some perspective on why some disbelieve. I think God takes feedback to some degree. I think if you have doubts he should make those areas clear to you in his way. I would hope you would be open to those demonstrations. i agree with you it is okay to challenge the law they have been doing so since the Bible was written.

They usually respond along the lines of "Why do you want to know?"


How do you approach such a subject that it gets that kind of response? I don't recall EVER getting a response like that.


Rejecting Grace.


For some it starts at an early age. First it may be because you were forced to go to church


I wasn't forced. In England schools are variously religious - and I attended a couple of different ones, some less religios than others. I didn't mind the religious stuff - I sang in choir, etc.

My parents didn't force me to go to church.


...and some see it as a rebellion against their parents or possibly even the status quo.


Not my parents.


For some an incident happen which causes them to fall away.


In my case, apparently, it was actually reading the Bible.


For some the world rushes in. We become bogged down in worldly concerns.


I'm not a 'worldly' person.


You are going to college let's say and you have just enough time to study and work. You feel I can put this on hold for a while.


I was already an Atheist years before I went to college.


I would characterize you as not an atheist but an agnostic and a specific type.


No, I'm definitel an Atheist.

I don't believe in any god or gods. That makes me an 'Implicit Atheist'. I'm ALSO an Agnostic, because I'm not convinced there is ANY possible way for us to know, for sure.


The doubter/challenger. No one wants you to accept things with Blind faith. You can't cite the Bible as well as you do without some level of belief.


I was a believer when I first familiarised myself with the scripture. I still read constantly around the subject... including religious texts. I probably read from the Bible at least a couple of times a week.

But not because I believe. I'm looking for truth - and that's one of the places I've been told to look.


It is tough to say without specific knowledge of your situation what the first Brick in the wall was.


Reading the Bible, as far as I can tell.

Most Christians never actually READ their Bibles. They might do devotionals, or dip into chapters... learn some verses here and there... but I rarely meet anyone that read it cover to cover and actually thought about it.

Most of those that have actually read it, and SERIOUSLY thought about it? They're Atheists, or some other religion now. The Bible won't stand up to HONEST evaluation on it's own merits.


Sometimes ideas come into conflict with other ideas. This creates confusion, uncertainty, unsteadiness.


This is true.


For some it is their lifestyle which the cherish which comes into conflict with the church.


I have been told a number of times that I am the MOST 'Christian' non-Christian they've ever met. I live a far more Christ-like life than anyone in your church.

So - not buying 'confict'.


Refusing grace is not a new thing.


Nor is it a 'real' thing.

Refusing implies choice. I didn't choose.

If I could... I'd CHOOSE to be Christian.


I am gaining some perspective on why some disbelieve. I think God takes feedback to some degree. I think if you have doubts he should make those areas clear to you in his way.


I've been waiting paitently for 20 years.


I would hope you would be open to those demonstrations.


Absolutely. I'd like nothing better than to 'know'.


... i agree with you it is okay to challenge the law they have been doing so since the Bible was written.

People were challenging the religious status quo before the Hebrew people separated from other Ugaritic root cultures.

How do you approach such a subject that it gets that kind of response? I don't recall EVER getting a response like that.

I guess some feel I am judging them. Likely since every other Christian has told them they are wrong. Likely some are because they don't really know that much about their own faith. I will try to bring the subject up.

Suffice it to say I am not really looking for a new Operating System. The one I have works pretty well. It does have "bugs" but hopefully the one who is coding will work those out.



I wasn't forced. In England schools are variously religious - and I attended a couple of different ones, some less religious than others. I didn't mind the religious stuff - I sang in choir, etc.

My parents didn't force me to go to church.



Not my parents.



In my case, apparently, it was actually reading the Bible.

Yes your is a special case. I was speaking in general.



I'm not a 'worldly' person.


I agree you don't strike me as one.



I was already an Atheist years before I went to college.



No, I'm definitel an Atheist.

I don't believe in any god or gods. That makes me an 'Implicit Atheist'. I'm ALSO an Agnostic, because I'm not convinced there is ANY possible way for us to know, for sure.


This is the part I want to hear about.



I was a believer when I first familiarized myself with the scripture. I still read constantly around the subject... including religious texts. I probably read from the Bible at least a couple of times a week.

But not because I believe. I'm looking for truth - and that's one of the places I've been told to look.


Now we are getting to it. There is usually a first Brick as it were.



Reading the Bible, as far as I can tell.

Most Christians never actually READ their Bibles. They might do devotionals, or dip into chapters... learn some verses here and there... but I rarely meet anyone that read it cover to cover and actually thought about it.

Most of those that have actually read it, and SERIOUSLY thought about it? They're Atheists, or some other religion now. The Bible won't stand up to HONEST evaluation on it's own merits.


Speaking for myself I have read twice at least. Some books more than others.


This is true.



I have been told a number of times that I am the MOST 'Christian' non-Christian they've ever met. I live a far more Christ-like life than anyone in your church.

So - not buying 'confict'.


Let me start with the lyrics of a song. "What the head makes cloudy the heart makes very clear." It sounds like you have a problem with the legality of the Bible on first impressions. What happens is we get bogged down in translations in a language[s] that are easily misunderstood. Did he mean this or that. Virgin or Young Girl. You have heard them all before.

My question is does it change the content any if the author meant virgin or young girl in that one place. There are other place we confirm she was a virgin. Joseph for one said so. He was thinking of having her killed then angel appeared....


Nor is it a 'real' thing.

Refusing implies choice. I didn't choose.

If I could... I'd CHOOSE to be Christian.



I've been waiting paitently for 20 years.



Absolutely. I'd like nothing better than to 'know'.


I hope he will clear them up for you. He is a busy guy. It probably on the list somewhere.


People were challenging the religious status quo before the Hebrew people separated from other Ugaritic root cultures.

Agree there as well.

Suffice it to say I am not really looking for a new Operating System. The one I have works pretty well. It does have "bugs" but hopefully the one who is coding will work those out.


Christians witness because (they believe) other operating systems are wrong... true? Maybe they function... maybe they produce data, but they are based on something broken, so they can never yield the ultimate truth.

Seem like a fair assessment?

You would tell the Atheist that there is something missing in his operating system, tell the Hindu that his system has some incorrect data that are going to be throwing wrenches into his calculations?

(Not an attack - I, for one, would LOVE to be shown the error of my ways, if there IS an error).

Here's something to think about. Your own operating system has been sold to you very convincingly... but that doesn't mean it's not broken, just like all the others.. maybe more than some.

Are you prepared to actually consider that your own OS might be wrong?


This is the part I want to hear about.


What do you want to hear? Tell me and I'll tell, as much as I can.


Let me start with the lyrics of a song. "What the head makes cloudy the heart makes very clear." It sounds like you have a problem with the legality of the Bible on first impressions. What happens is we get bogged down in translations in a language[s] that are easily misunderstood. Did he mean this or that. Virgin or Young Girl. You have heard them all before.


You could say that one of my problems is legalistic - but my INITIAL problem is that I just didn't believe what I was being told before... just like I'd stopped believing in a Santa Claus (Well, Father Christmas, since I'm English) some years earlier.

The legalistic problem isn't about specific wording, per se - it's about the fundamental compatability errors between the text that promises Messiah (The OT) and the text that provides Messiah (the NT).

If you accept the OT as true - Jesus can't be Messiah.

If you accept the NT as true, the OT must be false or fatally flawed.

If the OT is false, then the PROPHECY of Messiah is meaningless, and Jesus fulfills nothing.

It's a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Judeo-Christian theology, which the standard answer SEEMS to be... to ignore or make excuses for.


My question is does it change the content any if the author meant virgin or young girl in that one place.


Absolutely. The NT claims 'evidence' in a whole load of 'prophecies'... most of which were not actually prophetic, much less prophecy of Messiah.

The Virgin Birth of the NT, for example... is not a prophecy of Messiah, but it is claimed as one.

Worse, the passage it is claimed it fulfills... doesn't even discuss a virgin.


I hope he will clear them up for you. He is a busy guy. It probably on the list somewhere.


I refuse to believe an omnipotent God lacks time.

Keep it a secret. Let everyone have their own opinion.

Keep it a secret. Let everyone have their own opinion.

The practise of religion should be private... that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it, does it?

The practise of religion should be private... that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it, does it?

Well.... mmmmmmaybe.

Well.... mmmmmmaybe.

I know I'd like to be shown 'the right way', if anyone can ever find one that we can collectively be sure IS so.

You look like a new nation - welcome to Nationstates :)

Christians witness because (they believe) other operating systems are wrong... true? Maybe they function... maybe they produce data, but they are based on something broken, so they can never yield the ultimate truth.

Seem like a fair assessment?

Very fair. To keep the analogy going. There are many OS out there. Do they do damage to the computer? No, most do not. We are all striving to process data. So we have OSX, Linux, Unix, and Windows. All do the same types of things. However you could also same the same things about a virus.

It may act like an OS but can actually do damage to the computer. They can make them susceptible to other viruses.

The designer started with an older OS and then provided an upgrade to a new OS. The people who have the old OS say "Why should we upgrade we liked the old one?" The designer says "Because it had some critical flaws which required starting over". We used the same core programming so your old programming "should" work in most cases.

You may have to change some drivers or upgrade a few programs but is essentially the same. OS with a few improvement. Then other companies see the success that this new OS has, and they start criticizing the new one trying to find flaws in the OS. This new OS only mentioned predecessor why do these other companies feel the need to challenge the new OS. In my opinion it is because their OS are not as robust.


You would tell the Atheist that there is something missing in his operating system, tell the Hindu that his system has some incorrect data that are going to be throwing wrenches into his calculations?

(Not an attack - I, for one, would LOVE to be shown the error of my ways, if there IS an error).

Here's something to think about. Your own operating system has been sold to you very convincingly... but that doesn't mean it's not broken, just like all the others.. maybe more than some.

Are you prepared to actually consider that your own OS might be wrong?

You have slimmed down Unix OS. Your mathematical calculations are second to none. Engineering second to none. You have processing capabilities that rival mainframes. The fastest and best hardware. My OS is designed to work on all platforms big and small expensive and cheap.

Mine may have flaws the documentation is not so good but the core OS is pretty solid.



What do you want to hear? Tell me and I'll tell, as much as I can.


Well fairly simple, what was happening at your life at that time? How old approx. were you? Details. Before college you started questioning what else was happening?


You could say that one of my problems is legalistic - but my INITIAL problem is that I just didn't believe what I was being told before... just like I'd stopped believing in a Santa Claus (Well, Father Christmas, since I'm English) some years earlier.

The legalistic problem isn't about specific wording, per se - it's about the fundamental compatability errors between the text that promises Messiah (The OT) and the text that provides Messiah (the NT).

If you accept the OT as true - Jesus can't be Messiah.

If you accept the NT as true, the OT must be false or fatally flawed.

If the OT is false, then the PROPHECY of Messiah is meaningless, and Jesus fulfills nothing.

It's a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Judeo-Christian theology, which the standard answer SEEMS to be... to ignore or make excuses for.



Absolutely. The NT claims 'evidence' in a whole load of 'prophecies'... most of which were not actually prophetic, much less prophecy of Messiah.

The Virgin Birth of the NT, for example... is not a prophecy of Messiah, but it is claimed as one.

Worse, the passage it is claimed it fulfills... doesn't even discuss a virgin.



I refuse to believe an omnipotent God lacks time.


I will go over this in a later post. The NT OT stuff needs a lot of attention and I have to go up North again. I will consider and post when I have a response.

Very fair. To keep the analogy going. There are many OS out there. Do they do damage to the computer? No, most do not. We are all striving to process data. So we have OSX, Linux, Unix, and Windows. All do the same types of things. However you could also same the same things about a virus.

It may act like an OS but can actually do damage to the computer. They can make them susceptible to other viruses.

The designer started with an older OS and then provided an upgrade to a new OS. The people who have the old OS say "Why should we upgrade we liked the old one?" The designer says "Because it had some critical flaws which required starting over". We used the same core programming so your old programming "should" work in most cases.

You may have to change some drivers or upgrade a few programs but is essentially the same. OS with a few improvement. Then other companies see the success that this new OS has, and they start criticizing the new one trying to find flaws in the OS. This new OS only mentioned predecessor why do these other companies feel the need to challenge the new OS. In my opinion it is because their OS are not as robust.


Maintaining the analogy - why do other people promote their OS? Some will do so because they are fans - no other reason. Some will do so because they have a vested interest. Some might do so for some form of profit. Some will do so for some personal ideology.

Most people will promote an OS because they see it as superior to some alternative (or all alternatives).

Why would some OS oppose this dominant OS? Well - it has problems. It conflicts with it's OWN earlier versions, and the patches released SINCE it was released. It's not compatible with a lot of the hardware that people want/need to hook up. Worse still - the official techsupport doesn't deal with any of the problems, except by telling you that the OS is safe, secure and stable... and expecting that to suffice.

Indeed, the techline basically attacks anyone who places a helpline call.


You have slimmed down Unix OS. Your mathematical calculations are second to none. Engineering second to none. You have processing capabilities that rival mainframes. The fastest and best hardware. My OS is designed to work on all platforms big and small expensive and cheap.

Mine may have flaws the documentation is not so good but the core OS is pretty solid.


But, is it?

If you're not even giving the other OS options an honest shake, how do you know? If you don't OBJECTIVELY assess your OS, how do you know?


Well fairly simple, what was happening at your life at that time? How old approx. were you? Details. Before college you started questioning what else was happening?


I would have been about 11 the first time I actually read the Bible. I'd done what most kids do - heard some, read some, been taught some - but that was the first time I read it cover-to-cover.

I would have been about 14 or 15 when I realised I basically just didn't actually believe it any more. I can't tell you what changed between those points in terms of spirituality.

I moved house, from city living to country living. I changed schools, from a slightly more secular (by UK standards) to a slightly more religious school. No death-in-the-family. No big changes in health. I can't think of a big change in that period of time. I've tried to work out if there was a 'reason', before.

Since that point, I've read the Bible many times. In several languages. I've read a huge quantity of Christian literature, and other religious literature. I've read a number of other 'holy books'... or read about other belief systems when 'holy books' are absent. I've read apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts. I've studied what came before Christianity, before Judaism... and what came after. I've read about the history surrounding the creation of the three main churches of Abrahamic religion.

I've searched for truth. Living where I live, being Christian would be an immense help. I just can't seem to do it. It's no more believable than goblins or ghosts.

Back to the analogy again I honestly evaluated the program of the other OS and try to incorporate those into my own. Those program may run better in their native OS but they do run on my OS as well.

Our OS does have bugs but maybe has the least bugs or maybe those bugs minor when compared against others. Most are in the documentation area. The documentation is in a foreign language, it is written by a designer that no longer exists. He died during the process of making the OS. He is no longer here to ask what did you mean here. This is the challenge.

With regard to conflicting with the previous version. We have admitted so but most programs still work. Those areas that don't work you could make work on your own computer.

The office tech support doesn't know how to deal with design problems. The techline suffers from the same problem.



On a serious note I have felt I need to look into Hinduism . Mostly the Vedas. I find religion interesting.


In your case I think is mostly doubt no other reason. What you have read doesn't sit well with you which is okay. Those areas need to be cleared up for you.


I am confused with the NT - OT thing as well. What is the point of making a bunch of rules and then send someone else just to change those rules.

Okay I am going to go out on a limb here. Mostly because I figure you can handle it

When you look at OT it one long story of us starting out on the right path but falling away. I mean how many times did God have to smack us down because we went off to worship other Gods. We tried to do it our own way. They ran away and he would bring them back together again and then they would be okay for a while and then they would drift back.

Maybe just maybe the message was not meant for them. Maybe it was meant for the Gentiles. He knew it would catch on like wildfire and it pretty much did. It would have died in the middle east had it not been for the Apostles.

Why not just start with the Gentiles in the first place? Maybe God likes a challenge? I know he doesn't enjoy being defied and at some point maybe you have to cut your losses and move on. He never really abandon them. They are still the chosen people. He still has hope they will turn around. He never gives up on anyone.

There was a clear policy change I am not sure why that needed to happen. I know one thing was to simplify the rules. I posted before on how the Pharisees and Sadducees had changed the law to a series of regulations. There were regulations on everything which caused the people to fall away. Jesus kind of cut through all that and said let's focus on the important rules and do away with the old ones.

Back to the analogy again I honestly evaluated the program of the other OS and try to incorporate those into my own. Those program may run better in their native OS but they do run on my OS as well.

Our OS does have bugs but maybe has the least bugs or maybe those bugs minor when compared against others. Most are in the documentation area. The documentation is in a foreign language, it is written by a designer that no longer exists. He died during the process of making the OS. He is no longer here to ask what did you mean here. This is the challenge.

With regard to conflicting with the previous version. We have admitted so but most programs still work. Those areas that don't work you could make work on your own computer.

The office tech support doesn't know how to deal with design problems. The techline suffers from the same problem.


Ah, you assume the OS is good - but you have no basis for comparison. Like all us mere mortal creatures, y can never REALLY evaluate the OS unil you see the actual product running on a machine that hasn't been hacked together and patched by enthusiastic but fallible tecnicians.

Maybe you'l be right, and when you get the chance to see the OS in it's native machine, it'll be a thing of beauty, and the only natural fit.

On the other hand... you might get to see the native machine and turn out to be the only PC user in a Mac-verse.


On a serious note I have felt I need to look into Hinduism . Mostly the Vedas. I find religion interesting.


Me also. I don't just study it as a means to truth, I study it as art a science, also.


In your case I think is mostly doubt no other reason. What you have read doesn't sit well with you which is okay. Those areas need to be cleared up for you.


It is doubt... but it's not necesrily about something that 'doesn't sit well'... the conflicts I have with things that don't add up, are in addition to a lack of ability to believe.


I am confused with the NT - OT thing as well. What is the point of making a bunch of rules and then send someone else just to change those rules.

Ah - now it's time for the heathen to minister to the true believer, if you'll allow me.

You create the rules for the time. The first covenant fits a certain time and a certain place, because it was what could be understood, what could be satisfied, at that time, by those people.

When your audience are ready, you can tailor the message to this newly 'sophisticated' audience.

Hence the 'new covenant'.

Ah - now it's time for the heathen to minister to the true believer, if you'll allow me.

You create the rules for the time. The first covenant fits a certain time and a certain place, because it was what could be understood, what could be satisfied, at that time, by those people.

When your audience are ready, you can tailor the message to this newly 'sophisticated' audience.

Hence the 'new covenant'.

Then it's clearly time for a third covenant.

Okay I am going to go out on a limb here. Mostly because I figure you can handle it

When you look at OT it one long story of us starting out on the right path but falling away. I mean how many times did God have to smack us down because we went off to worship other Gods. We tried to do it our own way. They ran away and he would bring them back together again and then they would be okay for a while and then they would drift back.

Maybe just maybe the message was not meant for them. Maybe it was meant for the Gentiles.


I was meant for the Gentiles. Expressly. The Levitical priesthood were a type for Israel as priests to the whole world.

It's actually one of the big arguments against Jesus - the nation of Israel is promised the priesthod... not one perfect sacrifice.


He knew it would catch on like wildfire and it pretty much did. It would have died in the middle east had it not been for the Apostles.


Couple of things:

1) Judaism wasn't seemingly going to disappear... nor was it limited to certain georgraphic borders... although it was hisorically (obviously) centred on 'Israel'. But it's expanded to just about every corner of the world. Christianity wasn't needed to 'save' Judaism.

2) The Apostles were only supposed to preach to Israel.

Then it's clearly time for a third covenant.

There have arguably been both third AND fourth covenants.

There was a clear policy change I am not sure why that needed to happen. I know one thing was to simplify the rules. I posted before on how the Pharisees and Sadducees had changed the law to a series of regulations. There were regulations on everything which caused the people to fall away. Jesus kind of cut through all that and said let's focus on the important rules and do away with the old ones.

Simplification is no assuance of truth or rightness. If the OT was right, and all the functions other priesthood were necesary then Jesus 'simplifying' the law would actually be DESTRUCTIVE to our relationship with god.

There have arguably been both third AND fourth covenants.

Then, by Mod, go tell the pope! He doesn't know about them!

Then, by Mod, go tell the pope! He doesn't know about them!

He knows, but he doesn't care. He doesn't accept them. The irony that the 'chosen people' feel the same way about the covenant HE claims... is apparently lost on him.

I was meant for the Gentiles. Expressly. The Levitical priesthood were a type for Israel as priests to the whole world.

It's actually one of the big arguments against Jesus - the nation of Israel is promised the priesthod... not one perfect sacrifice.



Couple of things:

1) Judaism wasn't seemingly going to disappear... nor was it limited to certain georgraphic borders... although it was hisorically (obviously) centred on 'Israel'. But it's expanded to just about every corner of the world. Christianity wasn't needed to 'save' Judaism.

2) The Apostles were only supposed to preach to Israel.

They did their damnedest to try to make it end. They had all the Apostles killed. With regard to number 1 it would have likely continued on as it has today, pretty much the same. It seemed to me that God wanted a break from the old ways. So you make a clean break and see where it takes you.

Also at some point 'Free Will" gets pulled back into the discussion. By constantly smacking them down wasn't that hampering their free will? It was and it needed to be done in this one instance to demonstrate his power. That he in fact was the real deal. That I AM who I say I am.

If you pray to "Other Gods' God was showing to us, that see nothing bad will happen. I can blow them up, blow up their worshipers, I can blow up their idols, and see nothing bad happens. That was for our sake. Also no matter how far you run I will find you and I can even make you come back. You can hide in basement and underground but I will see. You can call it something else and I will still figure it out. Also a demonstration that he is always watching and has been doing so since they became a nation. The OT is about nation building and setting the stage for the final act. He had to bring the Messiah out of Israel and out of the House of David. Everyone was lined up against him trying to prevent this occurrence because they knew it was Game Over afterward. So to some extent it had to play out the way it did.

We all like to say if only they hadn't killed Jesus. He had to do just what he did there was no other way. That was the "take this cup from me" stuff. There was no other choice. He was the sacrifice.

Simplification is no assuance of truth or rightness. If the OT was right, and all the functions other priesthood were necesary then Jesus 'simplifying' the law would actually be DESTRUCTIVE to our relationship with god.

It was Destructive but that was the way he wanted it to proceed. Nothing about the NT was peaceful, live and let live thing. Jesus mentioned that he came to bring a Sword. He was a challenge to the ways things had been done.

There have arguably been both third AND fourth covenants.

I think you are speaking of the Book of Mormon and the Koran.


Islam says that Jesus did not die on the cross. He was taken up to Heaven. Nothing to see here people just move along. The denial of the event make you question them from the start. Even with that they are pretty close to our Bible they have a little stricter dietary requirements and worship requirements.


The Book of Mormon starts off on the right foot but then goes it own way. It is hard to say what their aim is. I have been confused by them for some time. I don't believe it is to discredit Jesus it is for some other purpose. I don't really know what that is. They do believe in Jesus however they also believe in "God the Mother".

I think the rub comes in the "Nature of God" but I can't say for certain.

On first impressions Hinduism has many parallel with Buddhism at least the way it is practiced today. The ideas about Hinduism are interesting in that they try to explain different aspect of 'God". He is both a destroyer and a Creator. Interesting paradox. if we have the ability to choose up there I think I will get in this line up. Alas I don't think we do.

On Ifreann's idea (I can't be bothered to show you) I would also love to see our Legal System vote against God...

only a dream... ...yet
:hail:not any more...

They did their damnedest to try to make it end.


Who did their damnedest to try to make what end?

Egypt, Babylon, Greece?


They had all the Apostles killed.


Who did? Rome? Rome was attacking the new Christian cult, not the 'old' Judaic religion.


With regard to number 1 it would have likely continued on as it has today, pretty much the same. It seemed to me that God wanted a break from the old ways. So you make a clean break and see where it takes you.


I don't by this idea of a changable god. It sounds unscriptural to me.


Also at some point 'Free Will" gets pulled back into the discussion. By constantly smacking them down wasn't that hampering their free will? It was and it needed to be done in this one instance to demonstrate his power. That he in fact was the real deal. That I AM who I say I am.


Yes, the Old Testament God doesn't care for Free Will - which is probably why so many Christians are so desparate to divorce the OT scripture as much as possible.

But that's okay - the God that Christians have created from the God of the Tanakh doesn't reconcile very well with the OT Jehovah God. Jews have been commenting on that for two thousand years.


If you pray to "Other Gods' God was showing to us, that see nothing bad will happen. I can blow them up, blow up their worshipers, I can blow up their idols, and see nothing bad happens. That was for our sake. Also no matter how far you run I will find you and I can even make you come back. You can hide in basement and underground but I will see. You can call it something else and I will still figure it out. Also a demonstration that he is always watching and has been doing so since they became a nation. The OT is about nation building and setting the stage for the final act.


Jehovah God proclaimed in every nation, an end to war, etc. Yes - which still hasn't happened.


He had to bring the Messiah out of Israel and out of the House of David.


Which is one of those places 'Jesus' falls down - since he has no patrilineal linkage to David, and since he is blocked by the Curse of Jeconiah from ever sitting on the Throne.


Everyone was lined up against him trying to prevent this occurrence because they knew it was Game Over afterward.


Who was lined-up against him?

That doesn't even make sense - the fulfillment of OT prophecies of Messiah don't have the kind of doomsday scenarios that Christianity popularised.

If the OT prophecy was made true, everyone gets to know the True God, with the people of Israel as the priests to the world.

The idea that 'everyone lined up' against it is kind of nonsensical.


So to some extent it had to play out the way it did.

We all like to say if only they hadn't killed Jesus.


I don't think I've ever actually heard anyone say that...


He had to do just what he did there was no other way. That was the "take this cup from me" stuff. There was no other choice. He was the sacrifice.

Thorny position to argue - there are 'other ways'. Indeed, there are the OT prophecies that suggest another way, with Israel ministering to the world - which is why Jews still don't accept the Christian claim to Messiah - it would mean God lied about the Messianic prophecy.

It was Destructive but that was the way he wanted it to proceed. Nothing about the NT was peaceful, live and let live thing. Jesus mentioned that he came to bring a Sword. He was a challenge to the ways things had been done.

Which is why he fails to meet the most basic requirements of Messiah. Messiah unites Israel, he doesn't divide it. The beatitudes are peaceful. And therein lies another problem - it's hard to reconcile the Jesus who preaches love and tolerance, with the one who brings the sword.

The obvious logical position is that the 'sword' stuff was added to try to fulfill prophecies of 'fire and the sword'...and the fact that it doesn't fit the rest of the text, be damned.

I think you are speaking of the Book of Mormon and the Koran.


I was really thinking that both Islam and Baha'i continue the Abrahamic tradition.


Islam says that Jesus did not die on the cross. He was taken up to Heaven. Nothing to see here people just move along. The denial of the event make you question them from the start.


No, it doesn't.

It makes YOU question them - because you can't see it objectively.

If you don't start from the assumption that Jesus was divine, yadi yadi, Islam adheres more strictly to Abrahamic tradition than Christianity does.


Even with that they are pretty close to our Bible they have a little stricter dietary requirements and worship requirements.


Again - as I said - Islam is closer to the religion that originally prophecied Messiah... and both of them are still waiting.

It is Christianity that 'doesn't fit'.


The Book of Mormon starts off on the right foot but then goes it own way. It is hard to say what their aim is. I have been confused by them for some time. I don't believe it is to discredit Jesus it is for some other purpose. I don't really know what that is. They do believe in Jesus however they also believe in "God the Mother".


'God the Mother' isn't that hard to reconcile. The OT talks about the creative aspect of God being feminine (which somehow doesn't feature in the NT triumvirate... yet another strike against Christian theology). Not to mention, in the chthonic remains buried deep in Genesis, the earth 'herself' is a creative force.

"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?"

Attributed to Epicurus

"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?"

Attributed to Epicurus



Is he both able and willing? He is both willing and able. Evil comes from its own source.

Who did their damnedest to try to make what end?

Egypt, Babylon, Greece?


The Jews and Rome



Who did? Rome? Rome was attacking the new Christian cult, not the 'old' Judaic religion.


Rome did and the "New Cult" was no threat to them. Why spend so much energy on something that was solely a Jewish matter? Really it amounts to something like a "Civil War" maybe better is an "ideological war"


I don't by this idea of a changeable god. It sounds unscriptural to me.

Just a theory of mine. I think to some degree he examines the state of things and make changes every now and then.


Yes, the Old Testament God doesn't care for Free Will - which is probably why so many Christians are so desperate to divorce the OT scripture as much as possible.

But that's okay - the God that Christians have created from the God of the Tanakh doesn't reconcile very well with the OT Jehovah God. Jews have been commenting on that for two thousand years.


There does appear to a severe policy shift.


Jehovah God proclaimed in every nation, an end to war, etc. Yes - which still hasn't happened.


We are closing in but there is some stuff still to be done.


Which is one of those places 'Jesus' falls down - since he has no patrilineal linkage to David, and since he is blocked by the Curse of Jeconiah from ever sitting on the Throne.


I will ask this at church today and see what their response is. I will probably be excommunicated but the question is a solid one.



Who was lined-up against him?


Herod tried to have all new born infants and children up to the age of 2 killed.


That doesn't even make sense - the fulfillment of OT prophecies of Messiah don't have the kind of doomsday scenarios that Christianity popularised.

If the OT prophecy was made true, everyone gets to know the True God, with the people of Israel as the priests to the world.

The idea that 'everyone lined up' against it is kind of nonsensical.


OT is for the most part unchanged. The dietary requirements changed and working on the Sabbath the rest was unchanged.



I don't think I've ever actually heard anyone say that...

Thorny position to argue - there are 'other ways'. Indeed, there are the OT prophecies that suggest another way, with Israel ministering to the world - which is why Jews still don't accept the Christian claim to Messiah - it would mean God lied about the Messianic prophecy.

Very thorny, actually you can hardly see the plant for all the thorns. So this bring us to Revelations. In the end days they will be shown supposedly. The will get their proof if they survive. That is the 144,000 supposedly and that is small number when compared against how many Jews there are today. Which tends to show that they will hold on to their ideas even unto death.

Is he both able and willing? He is both willing and able. Evil comes from its own source.

Was this source outside of creation or did God create it?

Herod tried to have all new born infants and children up to the age of 2 killed.

No he didn't. The only source that claims this is the Bible, but there were a number of historians (even those who didn't like Herod) who completely failed to record this event. It's even only mentioned in one of the gospels.

Is he both able and willing? He is both willing and able. Evil comes from its own source.Was this source outside of creation or did God create it?
Most variants of the Bible that I've studied in the past state clearly that evil does indeed come from God. The King James variant of Isaiah (45:7), for example, reads "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things".

Of course, in a continuing quest to remove these niggling little annoyances from their perfect text, there are those who try to sanitise the language used so as to subtly alter the messages that they can draw from it for use in their preachings and teachings. That, presumably, is why the same passage in the New American Standard Bible reads "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.".

It's almost as if there are people trying to iron out inconsistencies and absurdities, for some reason.

It's almost as if there are people trying to iron out inconsistencies and absurdities, for some reason.

If that is done through reasoning and such that is of course laudable.

If it is done by deliberately ignoring or mistranslating inconvenient pieces of text from ones own holy book it is hypocrisy at its finest - as well as an act comparable to urinating all over Gods face. One wonders where such people find the nerve to refer to themselves as "Christians", considering the vengeful nature of their God.

Is he both able and willing? He is both willing and able. Evil comes from its own source.

No, scripturally, Jehovah God is the originator of everything that is... be it good OR evil.

The Jews and Rome


I thought we were talking about the Jews?

The Jews were persecuting the Jews?


Rome did and the "New Cult" was no threat to them. Why spend so much energy on something that was solely a Jewish matter? Really it amounts to something like a "Civil War" maybe better is an "ideological war"


The Jews didn't try to wipe out the Christian cult, and the Roman dealings with the Christian cult seem to largely have been dealing with Christians as trouble-makers.


Just a theory of mine. I think to some degree he examines the state of things and make changes every now and then.



There does appear to a severe policy shift.


There's an understatement. It doesn't appear scriptural - that's my problem with it. Scripture tells us unchanging, from everlasting to everlasting, all that.


We are closing in but there is some stuff still to be done.


People have been saying THAT for two thousand years.

We're not in the end times. These times are the same as all other times.


I will ask this at church today and see what their response is. I will probably be excommunicated but the question is a solid one.


I doubt you'll be excommunicated... they'll probably roll out the old 'offshoot of the house of david' story to explain something about how they believe prophecy of lineage could also be expanded to deal with non-lineage-lineages.


Herod tried to have all new born infants and children up to the age of 2 killed.


Yeah... or not. No contemporary sources support that claim.


OT is for the most part unchanged. The dietary requirements changed and working on the Sabbath the rest was unchanged.


Actually, the most important details are changed - more important even than the Laws... the Christian cult claimed that the Messianic prophecies are changed.


Very thorny, actually you can hardly see the plant for all the thorns. So this bring us to Revelations. In the end days they will be shown supposedly. The will get their proof if they survive. That is the 144,000 supposedly and that is small number when compared against how many Jews there are today. Which tends to show that they will hold on to their ideas even unto death.

Revelations is New Testament. Jews are hardly likely to be impressed by these new claims of Messiah, especially when the Christians are claiming Messiah has already come despite not fulfilling the requirements.

That's why Jews don't put much stock in Christian interpretations - they have the prophecies of Messiah, and they STILL haven't been fulfilled... so Jews know that Jesus was not only a false prophet, but also a false messiah.

Most variants of the Bible that I've studied in the past state clearly that evil does indeed come from God. The King James variant of Isaiah (45:7), for example, reads "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things".

Of course, in a continuing quest to remove these niggling little annoyances from their perfect text, there are those who try to sanitise the language used so as to subtly alter the messages that they can draw from it for use in their preachings and teachings. That, presumably, is why the same passage in the New American Standard Bible reads "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.".

It's almost as if there are people trying to iron out inconsistencies and absurdities, for some reason.

Right I have "I bring prosperity and create disaster". I think disaster work better in the context. The evil was a matter of perspective.

I thought we were talking about the Jews?

The Jews were persecuting the Jews?


Oh it very much was. A religious Civil war so to speak.


The Jews didn't try to wipe out the Christian cult, and the Roman dealings with the Christian cult seem to largely have been dealing with Christians as trouble-makers.


Clearly not worth the considerable effort they put into it. You can look at Nero for one example.




There's an understatement. It doesn't appear scriptural - that's my problem with it. Scripture tells us unchanging, from everlasting to everlasting, all that.


Well we can see evidence of him changing his mind so to speak in the story of Jonah. The most reluctant of messengers. He was going there to tell the end would come in 40 days. They changed their ways put on sackcloth and all that. God saw this and relented. There are couple of other examples. So he does use some feedback.




People have been saying THAT for two thousand years.

We're not in the end times. These times are the same as all other times.


I don't know for a fact we are in end of days scenario. What I meant was Christianity has been brought to the almost all continents. Just about every language I believe.


I doubt you'll be excommunicated... they'll probably roll out the old 'offshoot of the house of david' story to explain something about how they believe prophecy of lineage could also be expanded to deal with non-lineage-lineages.


Actually the Father brought up that Jesus earthly father was just as important in his upbringing in the early years. We often overlook that. It would have been sort of like an adoption although nothing formal was put in place because they didn't need one.



Yeah... or not. No contemporary sources support that claim.


yeah likely not something he was proud of would speak about at parties.



Actually, the most important details are changed - more important even than the Laws... the Christian cult claimed that the Messianic prophecies are changed.


Father didn't have time for this discussion today as he had to go to a Nursing Home. I will catch up with him next Sunday or earlier if time permits.


Revelations is New Testament. Jews are hardly likely to be impressed by these new claims of Messiah, especially when the Christians are claiming Messiah has already come despite not fulfilling the requirements.


Without the second coming it was just bunk. We will need to wait and see.


That's why Jews don't put much stock in Christian interpretations - they have the prophecies of Messiah, and they STILL haven't been fulfilled... so Jews know that Jesus was not only a false prophet, but also a false messiah.

Seems pretty close to me. Granted I am a layman of Biblical prophesy. If he doesn't come again he was lying.

Was this source outside of creation or did God create it?

God created the beings, but Evil happened on it own. It is never mentioned from where it came. It is fairly easy though it is usually just the opposite of God's wishes.

Selflessness vs. Selfishness
Truth vs. False
Peace vs. War
Love vs. Hate
Control vs. Chaos

There has to be an opposite.

Hot vs. cold
up vs. down
light vs. dark

Yes, yes i know you can only make something less hot or less lit. Up depends on where you are standing. The philosophy is sound. Think of something without an opposite.

God created the beings, but Evil happened on it own. It is never mentioned from where it came.
But if you're claiming that God is able and willing to prevent evil, then why is evil around?

Going back to Epicurus' challenge (via Rambhutan's post), you're implying that God either is unable to prevent evil, and thus there is a power in creation higher than God, or that God is willing to allow evil to happen, and is thus not a loving God.

It is fairly easy though it is usually just the opposite of God's wishes.
Another old conundrum here, this time the Euthyphro Dilemma. If evil is " just the opposite of God's wishes", then morality as prescribed by God is completely arbitrary. On the other hand, if what God tells us to do truly is good, then God seems to be subscribing to a morality above and beyond Him, and again He is not the ultimate authority in creation.

The philosophy is sound. Think of something without an opposite.
The colour green? A game of Risk? Norway?

Well we can see evidence of him changing his mind so to speak in the story of Jonah. The most reluctant of messengers. He was going there to tell the end would come in 40 days. They changed their ways put on sackcloth and all that. God saw this and relented. There are couple of other examples. So he does use some feedback.


He sets ultimatums, and punishes or rewards depending on the reaction to them. What you are claiming, is that he actually changes his plans.


I don't know for a fact we are in end of days scenario. What I meant was Christianity has been brought to the almost all continents. Just about every language I believe.


And yet, two thirds of the world are not Christian. More importantly - they aren't Jews (since that would be what the real prophecy would refer to). Clearly, we aren't close to the messianic age that the Jews were, and still are, waiting for.


Actually the Father brought up that Jesus earthly father was just as important in his upbringing in the early years. We often overlook that. It would have been sort of like an adoption although nothing formal was put in place because they didn't need one.


I've seen the argument before. It's cute - but it's bullshit. If a disease is in the blood, you don't acquire it through adoption. The Old Testament is intense about the power of blood, and the Messianic Lineage is a BLOOD lineage.

I expected (pretty much) the answer you gor, because it's a fairly common one... but it's also unforgivably weak. The idea that Jehovah God can be tricked by an adoption is frankly hilarious.


yeah likely not something he was proud of would speak about at parties.


Which is irrelevent.


Without the second coming it was just bunk. We will need to wait and see.


The Hebrew prophecies of Messiah paint him as a mortal man, and an earthly king. Not a prophet, not a god. With a 'second coming', Jews would still doubt the divinity of Jesus - and certainly his qualification to claim the mantle of messiah.


Seems pretty close to me. Granted I am a layman of Biblical prophesy. If he doesn't come again he was lying.

Well, by that token - he already was - because of that whole 'I'll be back' thing that fell flat, already.

God created the beings, but Evil happened on it own. It is never mentioned from where it came. It is fairly easy though it is usually just the opposite of God's wishes.

Selflessness vs. Selfishness
Truth vs. False
Peace vs. War
Love vs. Hate
Control vs. Chaos

There has to be an opposite.

Hot vs. cold
up vs. down
light vs. dark

Yes, yes i know you can only make something less hot or less lit. Up depends on where you are standing. The philosophy is sound. Think of something without an opposite.

Light and heat both lack opposites, and 'up' is relative.

The Old Testament God is the root of all... of good and evil.

But if you're claiming that God is able and willing to prevent evil, then why is evil around?

Mostly because we are around. This goes back to Free Will again.


Going back to Epicurus' challenge (via Rambhutan's post), you're implying that God either is unable to prevent evil, and thus there is a power in creation higher than God, or that God is willing to allow evil to happen, and is thus not a loving God.


He is not unable to prevent it. We are unable to follow his rules and do the "right" things to prevent evil. It also begs the question what is your definition of evil? He told us how to prevent the vast majority of evil.

He is very much allowing evil to happen, that does not imply that he is not a loving God. Sometimes you have to let people make mistakes to show them the error of their ways.


Another old conundrum here, this time the Euthyphro Dilemma. If evil is " just the opposite of God's wishes", then morality as prescribed by God is completely arbitrary. On the other hand, if what God tells us to do truly is good, then God seems to be subscribing to a morality above and beyond Him, and again He is not the ultimate authority in creation.


" just the opposite of God's wishes", then morality as prescribed by God is completely arbitrary. This part I don't get how is completely aribitary? He spelled it out numerous times to us in amazing detail.


The colour green? A game of Risk? Norway?
Everthing has an opposite. The easiest way is not put Not at the front of the statement

Not Green, Not the game of risk, Not Norway.


Blue is the opposite of Orange
Yellow is the opposite of Purple
Red is the opposite of Green
Black is the opposite of White


Norway Coordinates: 62 00 N, 10 00 E. Anything outside of those coordinates is not in Norway. Therefore not Norway.

Anything can be inverted it is mathematical.

Kenya is the opposite of Norway.

This part I don't get how is completely aribitary? He spelled it out numerous times to us in amazing detail.


Errr... that doesn't mean it's not arbitrary.

Kenya is the opposite of Norway.

I wonder what the opposite of England is.

I wonder what the opposite of England is.

I'll consult the Oracles. My immediate suspicion is that it is probably Latvia.

I'll consult the Oracles. My immediate suspicion is that it is probably Latvia.

Hmm, I'm thinking possibly China.

Hmm, I'm thinking possibly China.

That was actually my other choice.

I wonder what the opposite of England is.

France. :tongue:

God created the beings, but Evil happened on it own. It is never mentioned from where it came. It is fairly easy though it is usually just the opposite of God's wishes.

Selflessness vs. Selfishness
Truth vs. False
Peace vs. War
Love vs. Hate
Control vs. Chaos

There has to be an opposite.

Hot vs. cold
up vs. down
light vs. dark

Yes, yes i know you can only make something less hot or less lit. Up depends on where you are standing. The philosophy is sound. Think of something without an opposite.

Unfortunately, I disagree with your idea of where jehovah (a major asshole) is. Let's compare: (and please corretc me if I'm wrong)

Your view........My view
Selflessness...Selfishness
Truth...............False
Peace..............War
Love................Hate
Control............Control

80% disagreement is not good... especially since there the only agreement is on one where they aren't really opposites. I feel that the final one should instead be Control vs Chaos vs Shared Power.

I wonder what the opposite of England is.

The opposite of England is Not England.

Where Not in this case is an inverter. You can also have multiple opposites. What is England. At the root it is a collection of lines on a map or geographical coordinates.

Anything else as attributed to the Object which is this case is England.


England is a container class a group of objects.

England could have the following objects:

People
Culture
Laws
Morals
Resources


And so on

You have to boil it down to atomic level. The atomic level in this case is where it can be divided no longer without difficulty. The geographical coordinates is that root.

Once you analyze the world this way it bring clarity you have never had before.

In general you have Objects and Methods.

An object can have any number attributes. An attribute is anything which describes an object. For example box is an object.

Box can have any number of attributes:

length, depth, weight, mass, substance


Methods are activities general and action of some kind. They also have a root definition.

Jumping is a method. Methods can also have attributes. One definition may be the ability to lift oneself off the ground some distance through physical force.


Why am I telling you all this? When you start to analyze things this way you discover things you have falsely attributed to something else. Which is what we have done with regard to God.

In general you have Objects and Methods.

An object can have any number attributes. An attribute is anything which describes an object. For example box is an object.

Box can have any number of attributes:

length, depth, weight, mass, substance


Methods are activities general and action of some kind. They also have a root definition.

Jumping is a method. Methods can also have attributes. One definition may be the ability to lift oneself off the ground some distance through physical force.


Why am I telling you all this? When you start to analyze things this way you discover things you have falsely attributed to something else. Which is what we have done with regard to God.

WOW...we switched from religion to Object Oriented Programming?

awesome threadjack!!! :hail:

This part I don't get how is completely aribitary? He spelled it out numerous times to us in amazing detail.
Arbitrary in the sense that it's merely God's wishes. Murder is wrong to God simply because he feels like it, not because it is, intrinsically, bad.

Everthing has an opposite. The easiest way is not put Not at the front of the statement

Not Green, Not the game of risk, Not Norway.
'¬x' isn't the same as 'the opposite of x'. ('¬' = 'not')

Take '¬Risk'. That simply means 'anything that isn't Risk', not just 'the opposite of Risk'. Loads of things are ¬Risk; indeed, everything but Risk is ¬Risk.

And saying everything in the universe is the opposite of Risk seems a very odd statement.

Unfortunately, I disagree with your idea of where jehovah (a major asshole) is. Let's compare: (and please corretc me if I'm wrong)

Your view........My view
Selflessness...Selfishness
Truth...............False
Peace..............War
Love................Hate
Control............Control

80% disagreement is not good... especially since there the only agreement is on one where they aren't really opposites. I feel that the final one should instead be Control vs Chaos vs Shared Power.



It may be better to describe this point a little. You can't really have poverty for example. You can have a lack of money assuming that is what poverty is. So lie could be the lack of truth. Truth is subjective to some degree. Truth is separate from fact. You could call truth a collection of facts? That is only one definition.

1+1=2 this is a fact. Anywhere in the universe.

Truth is again a container class. It may have the following attributes

Facts
Intangibles

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.

Perfect example.

Who is we. The people of the Untied States of America

So far it satisfies the requirements.

What is truths

A collection of facts and intangibles

Is it a fact that all men are created equal?

Equal in what sense?

Are we all the same height?

Nope

So now comes the hard part context. Context is kind of like one instance of an object or collection. In this case he was talking politically let's say. Okay that is a context.

You asking the public of the United States in this case to accept that all men are created equal. It is subjective at it very nature.

He sets ultimatums, and punishes or rewards depending on the reaction to them. What you are claiming, is that he actually changes his plans.



And yet, two thirds of the world are not Christian. More importantly - they aren't Jews (since that would be what the real prophecy would refer to). Clearly, we aren't close to the messianic age that the Jews were, and still are, waiting for.



I've seen the argument before. It's cute - but it's bullshit. If a disease is in the blood, you don't acquire it through adoption. The Old Testament is intense about the power of blood, and the Messianic Lineage is a BLOOD lineage.

I expected (pretty much) the answer you gor, because it's a fairly common one... but it's also unforgivably weak. The idea that Jehovah God can be tricked by an adoption is frankly hilarious.



Which is irrelevent.



The Hebrew prophecies of Messiah paint him as a mortal man, and an earthly king. Not a prophet, not a god. With a 'second coming', Jews would still doubt the divinity of Jesus - and certainly his qualification to claim the mantle of messiah.

Now you have nailed the issue. If he comes back which defies all logic. Some of the Jews will still not believe. There lies the problem for which we have been arguing about for 2000+ years. Belief implies you have a choice. You can choose to believe or not. You can base you opinions on fact or not. The facts in this case are hard to discern I will give that to you. Some say there are no facts with regard to this issue. You have shown them in minute detail. The issue is very subjective. Faith is subjective. Faith implies believe beyond facts.



Well, by that token - he already was - because of that whole 'I'll be back' thing that fell flat, already.

If he doesn't come back this was all for naught and I apologize. If he does look out.

Errr... that doesn't mean it's not arbitrary.

That is a matter of perspective. Depends who is the judge.

Dictionary: arbitrary
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.

3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.

4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

1 is almost completely ruled out unless we mean the whim of God, in which case all the rules are arbitrary
2. Is almost completely ruled. God did not say there is one rule for Grave-n-Idle and one rule for Truly Blessed
3. There many specific laws "Thou shall not commit adultery"
4. The majority of rules were limited by law.

We found out later than some rules were more important than others.

But Joey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Alois_Ratzinger) insists that 1+1=1!

Some of the Jews will still not believe

Some of the christians still won't move on.

Murder is wrong to God simply because he feels like it, not because it is, intrinsically, bad.

If jehovah is anti-murder, then it's clearly a case of "Do as I say, not as I do over and over and over again."

-=-=-

When we get down to it, we haven't even decided on the nature of "deity". You see jehovah as good, omnipotent and unslayable; I see jehovah as evil, feeble, and deader than a post-movie Bond villain. Unfortunately, these viewpoints are probably way too far apart for one of us to switch opinions.

I'm stll curious, though: if jehovah was omnipotent, why didn't he appear in a form that clearly proves it without incinerating the audience?

If jehovah is anti-murder, then it's clearly a case of "Do as I say, not as I do over and over and over again."

"Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi"

Different God, similar view :p

But Joey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Alois_Ratzinger) insists that 1+1=1!



Some of the christians still won't move on.



If jehovah is anti-murder, then it's clearly a case of "Do as I say, not as I do over and over and over again."

-=-=-

When we get down to it, we haven't even decided on the nature of "deity". You see jehovah as good, omnipotent and unslayable; I see jehovah as evil, feeble, and deader than a post-movie Bond villain. Unfortunately, these viewpoints are probably way too far apart for one of us to switch opinions.

I'm stll curious, though: if jehovah was omnipotent, why didn't he appear in a form that clearly proves it without incinerating the audience?

One of the best questions so far. If there was no doubt I guess it would be a certainty. That would require no faith. He is big on faith. I like fact too, I must say. God really, really, likes faith. He also really, really likes free will. Those 2 are certain if you can be certain about anything in the Bible.

Now you have nailed the issue. If he comes back which defies all logic. Some of the Jews will still not believe.


That's because - even if he comes back, he still will have failed to meet the requirements of Messiah.


There lies the problem for which we have been arguing about for 2000+ years. Belief implies you have a choice. You can choose to believe or not.


How so?

I can't choose to believe - I would if I could.


You can base you opinions on fact or not. The facts in this case are hard to discern I will give that to you. Some say there are no facts with regard to this issue. You have shown them in minute detail. The issue is very subjective. Faith is subjective. Faith implies believe beyond facts.


There are no good facts. There are opinions, and there are stories. There are even personal experiences.. but, there's nothing you can mistake for a good solid (verifiable) fact.


If he doesn't come back this was all for naught and I apologize. If he does look out.

If he doesn't come back... not a particularly worrying risk, given that there's a two thousand years delay so far. Fairly safe bet that he's not 'coming back'.

If he does come back... it still wouldn't make him messiah, which means half of what we know about him (at least) is a lie. You should be as worried as I.

That is a matter of perspective. Depends who is the judge.

Dictionary: arbitrary
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.


Not really: Bolded for emphasis.

That's because - even if he comes back, he still will have failed to meet the requirements of Messiah.

If he comes back it means he was not lying and therefore was "The one". No one we know has achieved this. That would make him unique.



How so?

I can't choose to believe - I would if I could.

You have chosen not to believe.

choose 
1. to select from a number of possibilities; pick by preference: She chose Sunday for her departure.
2. to prefer or decide (to do something): He chose to run for election.
3. to want; desire.
4. (esp. in children's games) to contend with (an opponent) to decide, as by odd or even, who will do something: I'll choose you to see who gets to bat first.

You have selected that the "facts" do not add up and therefore you can not believe. You have any number of possibilities. You could chose based on faith. You could choose/make your decision based on chance (flip a coin). I don't even know if I can list all possibilities.



"Choosing not to decide you still have made a choice." Lyrics of a song


There are no good facts. There are opinions, and there are stories. There are even personal experiences.. but, there's nothing you can mistake for a good solid (verifiable) fact.

I have been considering this, at the moment I won't argue this. Facts are difficult to come by. By virtue of the fact of it happened so long ago and there were simply not the things we have today(newspaper etc.). It doesn't mean they don't exist, just difficult to come by.



If he doesn't come back... not a particularly worrying risk, given that there's a two thousand years delay so far. Fairly safe bet that he's not 'coming back'.

If he does come back... it still wouldn't make him messiah, which means half of what we know about him (at least) is a lie. You should be as worried as I.

If he does make sure you have your story straight.

Not really: Bolded for emphasis.

In that case everything in the Bible is arbitrary. None of it is laws. It is all based on the "whim" of God. This statement is difficult. Since they are called the "10 Commandments" not the "10 Suggestion For Living a Good Life". Hence the problem I have with arbitrary. I mean how much more definitive can you get? God even wrote them in stone.

This would be the word I would use.

de·fin·i·tive (dĭ-fĭn'ĭ-tĭv) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Precisely defined or explicit.
Supplying or being a final settlement or decision; conclusive. See Synonyms at decisive.
Authoritative and complete: a definitive biography. See Usage Note at definite.
Biology Fully formed or developed, as an organ or structure.
n. Grammar
A word that defines or limits, such as the definite article or a demonstrative pronoun.
de·fin'i·tive·ly adv., de·fin'i·tive·ness n.

One can define something explicitly, definitively, decisively.

But one can do so on an arbitrary basis.

I can arbitrarily decide green is wrong. Then I can definitively make it clear to you, spelling it out and by writing it in stone and banging it over your head until you agree with me. I can make up some justifications. But it can still be an arbitrary choice on my part when I decide what is right or wrong.
So God can do so too, I am sure.


I also don't think you have answered chumbly question on opposites. As you are fond of dictionary definitions, here is 'opposite':

1 a: set over against something that is at the other end or side of an intervening line or space <opposite interior angles> <opposite ends of a diameter> b: situated in pairs on an axis with each member being separated from the other by half the circumference of the axis <opposite leaves> — compare alternate

2 a: occupying an opposing and often antagonistic position <opposite sides of the question> b: diametrically different (as in nature or character) <opposite meanings>

3: contrary to one another or to a thing specified : reverse <gave them opposite directions>

4: being the other of a pair that are corresponding or complementary in position, function, or nature <members of the opposite sex>

5: of, relating to, or being the side of a baseball field that is near the first base line for a right-handed batter and near the third base line for a left-handed batter

Your examples:

Blue is the opposite of Orange.
They are not spacial opposites (as colours are ot in a particular place), they are not antagonistic to each other nor diametrically different in nature or character. They are not the reverse of each other. They are not part of a complementary pair such as genders. They are light waves/particles with different energies. That is no more opposite than 5 litres of water is the opposite of 7 litres of water.

Yellow is the opposite of Purple
Red is the opposite of Green
Black is the opposite of White As above.

If you are going to say that if you list the colours, they are at 'opposite ends', this entirely depends on turning something into an abstract spacial representation. If you listed numbers from left to right, 1-10, that doesn't make 6 is the opposite of 7, or 2 is the opposite of 9. It also relies on you limiting light to the visible spectrum, and not starting from gamma or x-rays and ending at sub-microwaves, or any point inbetween, which is an arbitrary choice.

Not England is the opposite of england
"not england" is, as already pointed out, ANYTHING that isn't england. Not an opposite as defined above.

If you accept the above, not everything NECESSARILY has an opposite. God can arbitrarily choose what is good and what is evil. If he CANNOT choose, because Good and Evil are self-evident and incontrovertible, then the ideas of Good and Evil are 'above' God, and govern him.

One can define something explicitly, definitively, decisively.

But one can do so on an arbitrary basis.

I can arbitrarily decide green is wrong. Then I can definitively make it clear to you, spelling it out and by writing it in stone and banging it over your head until you agree with me. I can make up some justifications. But it can still be an arbitrary choice on my part when I decide what is right or wrong.
So God can do so too, I am sure.

In which case everything he said is "arbitrary". God seemed to make everything definitive afterward. Hammering the point home over and over again. I agree to some degree.


I also don't think you have answered chumbly question on opposites. As you are fond of dictionary definitions, here is 'opposite':



Your examples:

Blue is the opposite of Orange.
They are not spacial opposites (as colours are ot in a particular place), they are not antagonistic to each other nor diametrically different in nature or character. They are not the reverse of each other. They are not part of a complementary pair such as genders. They are light waves/particles with different energies. That is no more opposite than 5 litres of water is the opposite of 7 litres of water.

Yellow is the opposite of Purple
Red is the opposite of Green
Black is the opposite of White As above.

If you are going to say that if you list the colours, they are at 'opposite ends', this entirely depends on turning something into an abstract spacial representation. If you listed numbers from left to right, 1-10, that doesn't make 6 is the opposite of 7, or 2 is the opposite of 9. It also relies on you limiting light to the visible spectrum, and not starting from gamma or x-rays and ending at sub-microwaves, or any point inbetween, which is an arbitrary choice.


Those are particular instances of color. When we examine color we must ask ourselves how are we going to do it.

Color at it root I believe is a wave of light. It reflects everything except a certain frequency. You could take that frequency and invert it with the help of an oscilloscope or electronics and see what color comes up?

With regard to numbers the opposites of 2 could be -2 assuming that was a choice. It could be 2^-1 =.5 also assuming that was a choice. You have to set forward in math what you will accept as answer. For example all natural numbers, all integers, all floating points etc.

{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} choose any number that satisfies the following equation. X<>1 (since I don't know where the fancy not equal to is) 2 through 10 become opposites


In computers if we take 2 it is actually equal to 00000010. Invert that it becomes 11111101 which would be in an 8 bit scenario it would be equal to 253.

Which brings home another point sometimes you can have multiple "opposites" depending on how you analyze the set or object in question. One of the cool things about reality.

With regard to definition: I prefer
op·pos·ing
1 : to place over against something so as to provide resistance, counterbalance, or contrast
2 : to place opposite or against something

Sidenote: Isn't kind of weird to use a root word to describe a word.




Not England is the opposite of england
"not england" is, as already pointed out, ANYTHING that isn't england. Not an opposite as defined above.

Depends on how you view an opposite. You could also look on the opposite side of the globe and see what comes up. That would also be an answer.



If you accept the above, not everything NECESSARILY has an opposite. God can arbitrarily choose what is good and what is evil. If he CANNOT choose, because Good and Evil are self-evident and incontrovertible, then the ideas of Good and Evil are 'above' God, and govern him.

I agree with this statement: God can arbitrarily choose what is good and what is evil

He then made it fairly definitive and explained some of the reasoning. He did not create evil though is the point. Evil is against the wishes of God. So against the wishes of God is ~= Opposite or the other end of the spectrum.

Maybe a better statement is "Everything could have an opposite or could have multiple opposites depending on how you evaluate the information."

http://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/worldrev.aspx

Kind of cool that we know this.

The following is a list of very approximate pairs of antipodal cities. Since about 80% of the world's land is antipodal to ocean, this list is necessarily very short. Since the paired cities below are as far apart as possible, they are probably the most expensive pairs of cities when it comes to flying or telephoning between them.

Svalbard, Norway McMurdo Sound, Antarctica
La Coruna, Spain Christchurch, New Zealand
Leon, Spain Wellington, New Zealand
Seville, Spain Auckland, New Zealand
Timbuktu, Mali Fiji
Bermuda Perth, Australia
Bogota, Colombia Jakarta, Indonesia
Lima, Peru Bangkok, Thailand
Asuncion, Paraguay Taipei, Taiwan
Santiago, Chile Xian, China
Buenos Aires, Argentina Shanghai, China
Cordoba, Argentina Wuhan, China
Bahia Blanca, Argentina Beijing, China

In that case everything in the Bible is arbitrary. None of it is laws. It is all based on the "whim" of God. This statement is difficult. Since they are called the "10 Commandments" not the "10 Suggestion For Living a Good Life". Hence the problem I have with arbitrary. I mean how much more definitive can you get? God even wrote them in stone.

Except we already established (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14420979&postcount=977) that jehovah violated the ten hypocrisies over and over again.

There's also the "minor" fact that those slabs do not exist and never did (unless some priest got bored and grabbed a chisel).

Jehovah denies the very existence of his parents.

Can't deny what you don't have. Does not apply.

Jehovah slaughters millions of innocent humans.

Innocence is relative. He may have rules different than our rules.


Jehovah commits adultery with Mary.

This is just nonsense. He explained the reasons beforehand. She agreed. He did the same for Joseph. He also was okay with it. It was also to make sure the baby had an earthly father and mother. This I sure you will agree is a special case.


Jehovah covets and steals the animals of his people, as well as the worshipers and land of less-offensive "deities".


God doesn't covet anything. His worshipers may take spoils from an enemy as was the custom at the time.


Jehovah commits libel about the other 'deities" multiple times.

Not libel if it is true. Again the party in question would have to bring charges.


Have you considered renaming the Ten Commandments to the Ten Hypocrisies?


No response. Just silly.

Those are particular instances of color. When we examine color we must ask ourselves how are we going to do it.

...snip... (but only because we are in broad agreement)


Which brings home another point sometimes you can have multiple "opposites" depending on how you analyze the set or object in question. One of the cool things about reality.

Not helpful for understanding it though! The point is, the concept is so fluid and open to interpretation (on your terms), that it appears...... arbitrary.


With regard to definition: I prefer
op·pos·ing
1 : to place over against something so as to provide resistance, counterbalance, or contrast
2 : to place opposite or against something

Sidenote: Isn't kind of weird to use a root word to describe a word.

Opposing is different to opposite

Good opposes Evil, is different to Good is the opposite of Evil.


Depends on how you view an opposite. You could also look on the opposite side of the globe and see what comes up. That would also be an answer.


The opposite side of the globe, is not the same as "not england". "not england" is still logically everything that isn't england.
What you have given is an instance of coordinates 180 degrees across a sphere on 2 axes from a specific point. That agrees with one part of the 'opposite definition - the one involving diametric opposition on 2 axes (definition 1). That still isn't the opposite of england, because england is not only a set of coordinates on a globe.

Or I could justify saying the opposite of murder is a tree, if they happened to be on opposite sides of the earth.



I agree with this statement: God can arbitrarily choose what is good and what is evil


So you think it's fine that we do whatever he says, just because it's his decision, and he says it. Ultimately autocratic, and on a whim? (as there is no higher power dictating to him). And when we make our own decisions, if they go against his arbitrary choice, we should be punished? Does that sound like a loving god?


He then made it fairly definitive and explained some of the reasoning. He did not create evil though is the point. Evil is against the wishes of God. So against the wishes of God is ~= Opposite or the other end of the spectrum.

Maybe a better statement is "Everything could have an opposite or could have multiple opposites depending on how you evaluate the information."

How can anything be against the wishes of an omnipotent god?

If you invoke 'free will', that still means God wishes evil to be performed, because he wishes us to be able to choose evil choices. He creates a world with ample opportunity, and indeed sometimes no choice at all in going against his wishes (e.g. when you never encounter christianity, but are damned for not following it). He Knows we will commit evil acts, but still allows us to.

If he comes back it means he was not lying and therefore was "The one". No one we know has achieved this. That would make him unique.


Being 'unique' isn't a mark of Messiah. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Here's my advice - forget your own church for a bit... find a Rabbi and ask them why Jesus wasn't the messiah. Then ask them what being 'messiah' would mean.

See - Christians, if they actually thought about what the OT tells them, and what the Jews already knew 2000 years ago, wouldn't be trying to argue Jesus as Messiah.

It's not what you think.


You have chosen not to believe.

choose 
1. to select from a number of possibilities; pick by preference: She chose Sunday for her departure.

You have selected that the "facts" do not add up and therefore you can not believe. You have any number of possibilities. You could chose based on faith. You could choose/make your decision based on chance (flip a coin). I don't even know if I can list all possibilities.


No, I just don't believe. The fact that the numbers don't add up only adds to that, but I already doubted before that.

Why don't you 'choose' to not believe in Jesus, now - call it an experiment.


If he does make sure you have your story straight.

If he does, make sure YOU have YOUR story straight. You've as much to fear as I from an actual Second Coming, because it makes the whole OLD Testament a lie.

This is just nonsense. He explained the reasons beforehand. She agreed. He did the same for Joseph. He also was okay with it. It was also to make sure the baby had an earthly father and mother. This I sure you will agree is a special case.


Not one I'd probably normally argue.. but EVERY case of adultery is a special case. That's why the law is universal. Except.. .apparently, if you are god. Then you can sin with impunity.

No wonder Jesus ended up on a cross, growing up knowing you impregnated your own mom? Poor kid must have been pretty fucked up.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/hate-mail-believers/article-649820-detail/article.html

Sir David Attenborough receives hate mail from viewers for not crediting God in his nature programmes.
"They tell me to burn in Hell and good riddance,'' Sir David said.
His comments were made as he publicised his latest documentary, on Charles Darwin and natural selection.
This year marks the bicentenary of Darwin's birth and 150 years since the groundbreaking On the Origin of Species, in which he set out evolution by natural selection, was published.
Asked by Creationists why he did not give "credit" to the Lord, Sir David said: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds.
"I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball.
"The worm cannot live in any other way except by burrowing through eyeballs.
"I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.''

I find myself agreeing, even if there were a God I find it hard to characterise it as anything other than malevolent.

Do you believe in the laws of Thermodynamics?

Do you accept Einstein's Theories of Relativity (special & general)?

Are you aware of the current hypothesis that light is cogniscent - which it appears to be?

Given those things, there's a reasonable catalogue of evidence for some as-yet-not-understood force that is open to manipulation through human energies (most people, including NASA, regocnise the potential for psychokinetic energy to manipulate seemingly random events).

Are atheists so arrogant as to presume that science is utterly wrong, and that this could not be the "god" force so many religions allude to?

Are you aware of the current hypothesis that light is cogniscent - which it appears to be?


Show me? Who came up with this hypothesis?

....

I find myself agreeing, even if there were a God I find it hard to characterise it as anything other than malevolent.

A morally neutral god who prioritises free will and novelty before his or her own omnipotence and omniscience is much easier to reconcile with our observations.

Show me? Who came up with this hypothesis?

Yeah. I'll need a source for this too. That's a pretty odd claim. My google-fu turns up nothing credible.

A morally neutral god who prioritises free will and novelty before his or her own omnipotence and omniscience is much easier to reconcile with our observations.

Hmm. I disagree, but am willing to be convinced I am wrong.
Can you elaborate on that position ?

Show me? Who came up with this hypothesis?


Yeah. I'll need a source for this too. That's a pretty odd claim. My google-fu turns up nothing credible.

Maybe he meant to say constant?

Hmm. I disagree, but am willing to be convinced I am wrong.
Can you elaborate on that position ?

Well, theological fatalism shows us that we either have an omniscient god, or we have free will. I seem to have free will, so that would suggest that god is not omniscient.

The existence of suffering is inconsistent with a god that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But suffering would be a necessary byproduct of a universe where free will exists. If you want chance to exist, you must also allow for the chance of bad things happening.

Now, it is possible that god does have these omniwhatever attributes, but chooses not to exercise them so that we have free will. To me, that is no different from a god that simply isn't omniwhatever.

Not the best clarification I ever wrote. Sorry.

Can't deny what you don't have. Does not apply.

And you actually BELIEVE this nonsense? Parentless life is only possible in single-0celled organisms.

Innocence is relative. He may have rules different than our rules.

"I, Jehovah, am a murderous psycho" does not qualify as an excuse for different rules.

This is just nonsense. He explained the reasons beforehand. She agreed. He did the same for Joseph. He also was okay with it. It was also to make sure the baby had an earthly father and mother. This I sure you will agree is a special case.

Guess what? The laws at the time didn't care if it was consentual or not. Even if it was, it's STILL adultery.


God doesn't covet anything. His worshipers may take spoils from an enemy as was the custom at the time.

"For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you." -- Deuteronomy 6:15. Need I add the parts where he insists that his followers convert the "heathens" by force?


Not libel if it is true. Again the party in question would have to bring charges.


Go try looking at the polytheistic religions. Although there are some pricks, most deities aren't nearly as evil as jehovah.

Are atheists so arrogant as to presume that science is utterly wrong, and that this could not be the "god" force so many religions allude to?

Science can't be 'utterly wrong', because science changes when the data conflicts.

Do you believe in the laws of Thermodynamics?

Do you accept Einstein's Theories of Relativity (special & general)?

Are you aware of the current hypothesis that light is cogniscent - which it appears to be?

Given those things, there's a reasonable catalogue of evidence for some as-yet-not-understood force that is open to manipulation through human energies (most people, including NASA, regocnise the potential for psychokinetic energy to manipulate seemingly random events).

Are atheists so arrogant as to presume that science is utterly wrong, and that this could not be the "god" force so many religions allude to?

Are christians so arrogant as to presume that a force like this MUST be jehovah, as opposed to Zeus, Bast, Krishna, or one of the other thousands of non-abrahamic deities people worshipped?

Are christians so arrogant as to presume that a force like this MUST be jehovah, as opposed to Zeus, Bast, Krishna, or one of the other thousands of non-abrahamic deities people worshipped?

If they weren't they wouldn't be christian.