100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Hats
|
|
not a big fan of hats myself, last hat I wore was my cowboy hat back in highschool lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/
May be a "biased" site if you will. But the evidences included inside the site can not possibly be "biased". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
That's a good illustration, Lazarus. In a similar vein, I have frequently referred to God as a cosmic-level deadbeat dad. If you think about it, all the parallels are there, including the part where some of his abandoned children defend anything he does, including bending over backwards to make excuses for him and his absence. Much psychology went into creation of the bible. I don't doubt that the people that made up the original bible stories were smart beyond their time to come up with such compelling tales as to keep people believing through the centuries. Things like psychology, facts and politics went into those pages mixed in with all the fairy tales. Very well done indeed. Believing that stuff in modern day is just plain silly but the people that made it up in the first place were true geniuses and given the time frame and how much more susceptible it was to corruption and conspiracy; I have a theory that the world leaders of the time likely banded together to create religion as a way of controlling the people. With the governing bodies and religion you've got the carrot and the stick and when the carrot is backing up the stick by enforcing all the same rules wanted by the stick then you've got a firm stranglehold on the masses and few will fight against it. I know that religion has been around for longer than civilized society but the governing bodies found a way to mold and control it to their benefit and to this day people are still slaves to it's influence. Right down to the stupidest laws/practices like circumcision and monogamy. Ya, baby dick mutilation, thx Jews! Edit: Ya I know psychology in it's current form didn't even exist until the current century but when I speak of it's influence on the bible, I don't mean it in it's official form but only in what people learned in those times of how to control the people. The phrase Neuro-linguistic programming comes to mind but I can't think of an example at current as to how it applies. Much psychology went into creation of the bible. I don't doubt that the people that made up the original bible stories were smart beyond their time to come up with such compelling tales as to keep people believing through the centuries. Things like psychology, facts and politics went into those pages mixed in with all the fairy tales. Very well done indeed. How psychological do you think they were in the BC era? And do you really think "fairy tales" were in existence at that time in mankind's history? Or back to my previous question, how "intelligent" on this kind of level do you feel people in the BC era were? And most these people that are included in the scriptures, or well the ones that wrote the things included in the scriptures didn't personally know one another. How intelligent were the people in the BC era, you ask? Well, here we are thousands of years later, with all of our advances, and we still don't know for certain how the Egyptians built the pyramids. So, they certainly weren't morons. Also, many of the laws found in the Mosaic Law, which many apologists erroneously believe reflect God-given wisdom and morality so far advanced of Israel's neighbors, are found in the older Hammurabi's Code and Principles of Maat. And, yes, the fairy tales found in the OT did exist prior to its writing. They are found in the much older Mesopotamian and/or Egyptian myths. The flood, the talking snake misleading a woman to disobey god(s), a god confusing the languages, and more... The flood, the talking snake misleading a woman to disobey god(s), a god confusing the languages, and more.. There is much evidence of a world wide flood my friend. http://www.icr.org/geological-strata/ And there's many other organizations that support a world wife flood as well. Good luck finding solid, non-biased evidence of a WORLD-WIDE flood, but there IS lots of evidence for massive regional floods, which is hardly shocking. And, even if there was a world-wide flood, that still does not prove that God caused it, or that any of the other elements of the story are true. (I refer back to my Bunny Men illustration here.) Can you not see that? Besides, I wasn't claiming that massive flooding never took place. What I was implying was that there are stories about a big flood in the older myths that are remarkably similar to the newer Noah story in the OT. (I can show you some of these similarities if you like.) Which makes it clear to me that the Noah story was most likely built upon the framework of the older myths, rather than being an inerrant, God-inspired and approved account of an actual historical event. And, again, this is true of many of the other MYTHS of the OT. Just curious how you would know Noah's story was made from these others. How is it not possible these are "changed" stories of Noah essentially changed a little through time as of course it would have been transferred verbally or with none too very little "written/documented" information on such a matter due too lack of technology or ways of keeping track of such things in that day and age? And also curious why you specifically deem Noah's story to be "newer" then these other possible off branches? How is it possible to have precise dating too when each of these accounts occurred in relation too the ancient documents/references we have of them? Of course carbon dating for the documents in themselves, but were/are they dated on when the flood actually occurred? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
You frightened of God or something? God has never tried to scare/frighten me, sorry for your unfortunates :(. You're like a beaten housewife that just denies or makes excuses for anything and everything bad that her husband does. You even ignore how your own words contradict you. God doesn't send us to hell for not believing, he just kills us but you somehow see nothing wrong with that. It's worship him and live forever but if you don't then you're dead; you get to embrace that eternal nothingness that you fear so much if you don't believe in and worship him. Bit of irony there really; I mean the way that even within the religion itself it blends reality and fantasy and it does it so great. Step into the rabbit hole Alice, all will be well.. That's a good illustration, Lazarus. In a similar vein, I have frequently referred to God as a cosmic-level deadbeat dad. If you think about it, all the parallels are there, including the part where some of his abandoned children defend anything he does, including bending over backwards to make excuses for him and his absence. His absence? I see and talk too God every day, sorry you miss out my friend. Oh, that's okay. No need to be sorry. If he's anywhere near as loquacious, boorish, and repetitive in person as he is in the OT, I'd rather not talk to him anyway. Wait a minute... On second thought, please tell him that I have some questions I'd really like to ask him, if he wouldn't mind stopping by my place for a bit. Thanks. Also, allow me to quote something I said a couple of pages back that's apropos here: Yeah, though I haven't read the entire thread, I did read a lot of the earliest posts. That's the way it generally goes. When you apply logic to these stories, they fall apart. So, anyone trying to defend them generally ends up either: 1.As you said, tossing any type of definable, objective evidence out the window, and falling back totally on faith. 2. Claiming that God actually IS literally talking to them. (A safe haven for them, since you cannot disprove the notion across the internet, no matter how much you point out how unlikely that notion is.) 3.Spinning like a tornado, in an attempt to make it look like certain words or phrases might kinda', sorta', perhaps if you squint real hard from fifty feet away, mean what they claim they mean, rather than the most obvious and generally accepted meanings. (Like your example about when someone farts, that is somehow God "talking" to us. Or, torturing the term "generation" used in Matthew 24:34, so as to rescue Jesus' "prophecy" there.) 4. Again, as you said, getting angry at you. To be fair he isn't actually claiming that god is talking back to him. Kinda like the concept of me talking to my vacuum cleaner XD. As for his claims of seeing god, I think he might want to get his head checked. From my memory of the bible(what little I have) you could not possibly 'see' god or your eyes would melt from their sockets (or something to that extent). Or perhaps he has seen god and this has happened. That would explain why he didn't say anything when we commented on his looks D-: . Sheesh, talk about a 'blind date" XD. True, but within the context of the discussion, it certainly seems an obvious implication. After all, he's arguing against my assertion that God is absent, like a deadbeat dad. And, if he is saying that he sees God, and talks to him, but God doesn't answer him back...he is once again painting a picture of a God who is a dick. He answers back every day :) There you have it. I stand by my previous statement. The God you describe is a dick, then. For, vast numbers of people who sincerely cry out to him every day never receive an answer. I guess he just likes you better. Maybe he has? Maybe just not the way you wanted it or expected it too be answered? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
That's a good illustration, Lazarus. In a similar vein, I have frequently referred to God as a cosmic-level deadbeat dad. If you think about it, all the parallels are there, including the part where some of his abandoned children defend anything he does, including bending over backwards to make excuses for him and his absence. Much psychology went into creation of the bible. I don't doubt that the people that made up the original bible stories were smart beyond their time to come up with such compelling tales as to keep people believing through the centuries. Things like psychology, facts and politics went into those pages mixed in with all the fairy tales. Very well done indeed. Believing that stuff in modern day is just plain silly but the people that made it up in the first place were true geniuses and given the time frame and how much more susceptible it was to corruption and conspiracy; I have a theory that the world leaders of the time likely banded together to create religion as a way of controlling the people. With the governing bodies and religion you've got the carrot and the stick and when the carrot is backing up the stick by enforcing all the same rules wanted by the stick then you've got a firm stranglehold on the masses and few will fight against it. I know that religion has been around for longer than civilized society but the governing bodies found a way to mold and control it to their benefit and to this day people are still slaves to it's influence. Right down to the stupidest laws/practices like circumcision and monogamy. Ya, baby dick mutilation, thx Jews! Edit: Ya I know psychology in it's current form didn't even exist until the current century but when I speak of it's influence on the bible, I don't mean it in it's official form but only in what people learned in those times of how to control the people. The phrase Neuro-linguistic programming comes to mind but I can't think of an example at current as to how it applies. Much psychology went into creation of the bible. I don't doubt that the people that made up the original bible stories were smart beyond their time to come up with such compelling tales as to keep people believing through the centuries. Things like psychology, facts and politics went into those pages mixed in with all the fairy tales. Very well done indeed. How psychological do you think they were in the BC era? And do you really think "fairy tales" were in existence at that time in mankind's history? Or back to my previous question, how "intelligent" on this kind of level do you feel people in the BC era were? And most these people that are included in the scriptures, or well the ones that wrote the things included in the scriptures didn't personally know one another. How intelligent were the people in the BC era, you ask? Well, here we are thousands of years later, with all of our advances, and we still don't know for certain how the Egyptians built the pyramids. So, they certainly weren't morons. Also, many of the laws found in the Mosaic Law, which many apologists erroneously believe reflect God-given wisdom and morality so far advanced of Israel's neighbors, are found in the older Hammurabi's Code and Principles of Maat. And, yes, the fairy tales found in the OT did exist prior to its writing. They are found in the much older Mesopotamian and/or Egyptian myths. The flood, the talking snake misleading a woman to disobey god(s), a god confusing the languages, and more... The flood, the talking snake misleading a woman to disobey god(s), a god confusing the languages, and more.. There is much evidence of a world wide flood my friend. http://www.icr.org/geological-strata/ And there's many other organizations that support a world wife flood as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
You frightened of God or something? God has never tried to scare/frighten me, sorry for your unfortunates :(. You're like a beaten housewife that just denies or makes excuses for anything and everything bad that her husband does. You even ignore how your own words contradict you. God doesn't send us to hell for not believing, he just kills us but you somehow see nothing wrong with that. It's worship him and live forever but if you don't then you're dead; you get to embrace that eternal nothingness that you fear so much if you don't believe in and worship him. Bit of irony there really; I mean the way that even within the religion itself it blends reality and fantasy and it does it so great. Step into the rabbit hole Alice, all will be well.. That's a good illustration, Lazarus. In a similar vein, I have frequently referred to God as a cosmic-level deadbeat dad. If you think about it, all the parallels are there, including the part where some of his abandoned children defend anything he does, including bending over backwards to make excuses for him and his absence. His absence? I see and talk too God every day, sorry you miss out my friend. Oh, that's okay. No need to be sorry. If he's anywhere near as loquacious, boorish, and repetitive in person as he is in the OT, I'd rather not talk to him anyway. Wait a minute... On second thought, please tell him that I have some questions I'd really like to ask him, if he wouldn't mind stopping by my place for a bit. Thanks. Also, allow me to quote something I said a couple of pages back that's apropos here: Yeah, though I haven't read the entire thread, I did read a lot of the earliest posts. That's the way it generally goes. When you apply logic to these stories, they fall apart. So, anyone trying to defend them generally ends up either: 1.As you said, tossing any type of definable, objective evidence out the window, and falling back totally on faith. 2. Claiming that God actually IS literally talking to them. (A safe haven for them, since you cannot disprove the notion across the internet, no matter how much you point out how unlikely that notion is.) 3.Spinning like a tornado, in an attempt to make it look like certain words or phrases might kinda', sorta', perhaps if you squint real hard from fifty feet away, mean what they claim they mean, rather than the most obvious and generally accepted meanings. (Like your example about when someone farts, that is somehow God "talking" to us. Or, torturing the term "generation" used in Matthew 24:34, so as to rescue Jesus' "prophecy" there.) 4. Again, as you said, getting angry at you. To be fair he isn't actually claiming that god is talking back to him. Kinda like the concept of me talking to my vacuum cleaner XD. As for his claims of seeing god, I think he might want to get his head checked. From my memory of the bible(what little I have) you could not possibly 'see' god or your eyes would melt from their sockets (or something to that extent). Or perhaps he has seen god and this has happened. That would explain why he didn't say anything when we commented on his looks D-: . Sheesh, talk about a 'blind date" XD. True, but within the context of the discussion, it certainly seems an obvious implication. After all, he's arguing against my assertion that God is absent, like a deadbeat dad. And, if he is saying that he sees God, and talks to him, but God doesn't answer him back...he is once again painting a picture of a God who is a dick. He answers back every day :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
You frightened of God or something? God has never tried to scare/frighten me, sorry for your unfortunates :(. You're like a beaten housewife that just denies or makes excuses for anything and everything bad that her husband does. You even ignore how your own words contradict you. God doesn't send us to hell for not believing, he just kills us but you somehow see nothing wrong with that. It's worship him and live forever but if you don't then you're dead; you get to embrace that eternal nothingness that you fear so much if you don't believe in and worship him. Bit of irony there really; I mean the way that even within the religion itself it blends reality and fantasy and it does it so great. Step into the rabbit hole Alice, all will be well.. That's a good illustration, Lazarus. In a similar vein, I have frequently referred to God as a cosmic-level deadbeat dad. If you think about it, all the parallels are there, including the part where some of his abandoned children defend anything he does, including bending over backwards to make excuses for him and his absence. His absence? I see and talk too God every day, sorry you miss out my friend. Oh, that's okay. No need to be sorry. If he's anywhere near as loquacious, boorish, and repetitive in person as he is in the OT, I'd rather not talk to him anyway. Wait a minute... On second thought, please tell him that I have some questions I'd really like to ask him, if he wouldn't mind stopping by my place for a bit. Thanks. Also, allow me to quote something I said a couple of pages back that's apropos here: Yeah, though I haven't read the entire thread, I did read a lot of the earliest posts. That's the way it generally goes. When you apply logic to these stories, they fall apart. So, anyone trying to defend them generally ends up either: 1.As you said, tossing any type of definable, objective evidence out the window, and falling back totally on faith. 2. Claiming that God actually IS literally talking to them. (A safe haven for them, since you cannot disprove the notion across the internet, no matter how much you point out how unlikely that notion is.) 3.Spinning like a tornado, in an attempt to make it look like certain words or phrases might kinda', sorta', perhaps if you squint real hard from fifty feet away, mean what they claim they mean, rather than the most obvious and generally accepted meanings. (Like your example about when someone farts, that is somehow God "talking" to us. Or, torturing the term "generation" used in Matthew 24:34, so as to rescue Jesus' "prophecy" there.) 4. Again, as you said, getting angry at you. To be fair he isn't actually claiming that god is talking back to him. Kinda like the concept of me talking to my vacuum cleaner XD. As for his claims of seeing god, I think he might want to get his head checked. From my memory of the bible(what little I have) you could not possibly 'see' god or your eyes would melt from their sockets (or something to that extent). Or perhaps he has seen god and this has happened. That would explain why he didn't say anything when we commented on his looks D-: . Sheesh, talk about a 'blind date" XD. Or maybe it was ment in the context of say you and your woman separate. You miss her, you "see" her everywhere you look. Maybe when you pass a special place, maybe see an outfit like the one(s) she loves, ect. So, you're admitting that God is absent, then. That's what I said in the first place. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and the Holy Spirit dwelleth within? No God can't be seen with these physical eyes in that literal of a sense. But doesn't mean he's absent... you can't see the oxygen in the air with your own bare eyes, does that mean it's absent? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
That's a good illustration, Lazarus. In a similar vein, I have frequently referred to God as a cosmic-level deadbeat dad. If you think about it, all the parallels are there, including the part where some of his abandoned children defend anything he does, including bending over backwards to make excuses for him and his absence. Much psychology went into creation of the bible. I don't doubt that the people that made up the original bible stories were smart beyond their time to come up with such compelling tales as to keep people believing through the centuries. Things like psychology, facts and politics went into those pages mixed in with all the fairy tales. Very well done indeed. Believing that stuff in modern day is just plain silly but the people that made it up in the first place were true geniuses and given the time frame and how much more susceptible it was to corruption and conspiracy; I have a theory that the world leaders of the time likely banded together to create religion as a way of controlling the people. With the governing bodies and religion you've got the carrot and the stick and when the carrot is backing up the stick by enforcing all the same rules wanted by the stick then you've got a firm stranglehold on the masses and few will fight against it. I know that religion has been around for longer than civilized society but the governing bodies found a way to mold and control it to their benefit and to this day people are still slaves to it's influence. Right down to the stupidest laws/practices like circumcision and monogamy. Ya, baby dick mutilation, thx Jews! Edit: Ya I know psychology in it's current form didn't even exist until the current century but when I speak of it's influence on the bible, I don't mean it in it's official form but only in what people learned in those times of how to control the people. The phrase Neuro-linguistic programming comes to mind but I can't think of an example at current as to how it applies. Well, as I implied in my earlier post, most of the stories in the OT were built upon the framework of older myths. And, many of the stories in the NT were built upon stories from the OT. Newer myths built upon previous myths. That said, I agree with you as far as the genius of some of the creators of these stories. A good example of this would be the Yahwists coming up with the idea that it was the PEOPLES' fault if Yahweh didn't save them from another nation. (You know:"Yahweh CHOSE not to save you, because you are all a bunch of shitheads.") Previously, it was pretty much accepted that if your nation got thumped on by another nation, then their gods were stronger than yours. The Yahwists' stroke of genius not only played upon peoples' inner sense of guilt, but also guaranteed that, no matter what happened, it wasn't Yahweh's fault. Therefore, he would continue to be worshiped. And, they would cash in. Speaking of cashing in: In addition to control, another reason for the storytellers to come up with these stories is that they figured out that, while getting a real job is hard, if they could spin some good stories about god(s), the rest of their fellow citizens would pay them for it! This is readily apparent when you read the OT. There are many places where the writers depict Yahweh as instructing the common people to give the priests lots of goodies. Also..."baby dick mutilation." Haha! (Ironically enough, even THAT likely came, not from God, but from the Egyptians.) That doesn't surprise me. The Egyptians were still on the barbaric side when it came to the treatment of the people. It still sickens me that people still practice it in this day and age though. We got rid of electro shock therapy because it was barbaric but we keep around a barbaric tradition like that, that's been around for 100's years longer. But ya, much of the OT had very human traits in it. I think that's why they made the NT, to weed out some of the errors that would make people go "hey... wait a minute...". On top of the parts that involve giving the priests 'goodies' there was the stoning of homosexuals. Likely a laundry-list of other things that were clearly human agendas as well. I agree totally about circumcision. It's one of many things that I can hardly believe has managed to hang on. As for the NT, you could be right about that. Another possibility that I have seen advanced is that the Romans, likely with Josephus' help, created Christianity as a means to quell the unrest among the messianic-minded Jews of the First Century by replacing their envisioned warrior messiah with a more pacifist-minded one. "Warrior Messiah" with a more "pacifist-minded" one? God is just as passive today as he was 2000 years ago. The only difference is you don't hear about the judgements on people for their actions per say. As we are no longer judged on Earth by our fellow brother. It is God that will carry it out in one final judgement. The only reward for sin is death and death is death my friend. Doesn't matter if it happens here and now, or some time in the future. Jesus is a warrior, he is our "God" that has absolute power and control over us as we are merely one of his creations. A creation he so generously thinks of us as children, but on this level the bottom dollar we are but a creation of his and he can and will do as he pleases... for again, he is God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
You frightened of God or something? God has never tried to scare/frighten me, sorry for your unfortunates :(. You're like a beaten housewife that just denies or makes excuses for anything and everything bad that her husband does. You even ignore how your own words contradict you. God doesn't send us to hell for not believing, he just kills us but you somehow see nothing wrong with that. It's worship him and live forever but if you don't then you're dead; you get to embrace that eternal nothingness that you fear so much if you don't believe in and worship him. Bit of irony there really; I mean the way that even within the religion itself it blends reality and fantasy and it does it so great. Step into the rabbit hole Alice, all will be well.. That's a good illustration, Lazarus. In a similar vein, I have frequently referred to God as a cosmic-level deadbeat dad. If you think about it, all the parallels are there, including the part where some of his abandoned children defend anything he does, including bending over backwards to make excuses for him and his absence. His absence? I see and talk too God every day, sorry you miss out my friend. Oh, that's okay. No need to be sorry. If he's anywhere near as loquacious, boorish, and repetitive in person as he is in the OT, I'd rather not talk to him anyway. Wait a minute... On second thought, please tell him that I have some questions I'd really like to ask him, if he wouldn't mind stopping by my place for a bit. Thanks. Also, allow me to quote something I said a couple of pages back that's apropos here: Yeah, though I haven't read the entire thread, I did read a lot of the earliest posts. That's the way it generally goes. When you apply logic to these stories, they fall apart. So, anyone trying to defend them generally ends up either: 1.As you said, tossing any type of definable, objective evidence out the window, and falling back totally on faith. 2. Claiming that God actually IS literally talking to them. (A safe haven for them, since you cannot disprove the notion across the internet, no matter how much you point out how unlikely that notion is.) 3.Spinning like a tornado, in an attempt to make it look like certain words or phrases might kinda', sorta', perhaps if you squint real hard from fifty feet away, mean what they claim they mean, rather than the most obvious and generally accepted meanings. (Like your example about when someone farts, that is somehow God "talking" to us. Or, torturing the term "generation" used in Matthew 24:34, so as to rescue Jesus' "prophecy" there.) 4. Again, as you said, getting angry at you. To be fair he isn't actually claiming that god is talking back to him. Kinda like the concept of me talking to my vacuum cleaner XD. As for his claims of seeing god, I think he might want to get his head checked. From my memory of the bible(what little I have) you could not possibly 'see' god or your eyes would melt from their sockets (or something to that extent). Or perhaps he has seen god and this has happened. That would explain why he didn't say anything when we commented on his looks D-: . Sheesh, talk about a 'blind date" XD. Or maybe it was ment in the context of say you and your woman separate. You miss her, you "see" her everywhere you look. Maybe when you pass a special place, maybe see an outfit like the one(s) she loves, ect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
That's a good illustration, Lazarus. In a similar vein, I have frequently referred to God as a cosmic-level deadbeat dad. If you think about it, all the parallels are there, including the part where some of his abandoned children defend anything he does, including bending over backwards to make excuses for him and his absence. Much psychology went into creation of the bible. I don't doubt that the people that made up the original bible stories were smart beyond their time to come up with such compelling tales as to keep people believing through the centuries. Things like psychology, facts and politics went into those pages mixed in with all the fairy tales. Very well done indeed. Believing that stuff in modern day is just plain silly but the people that made it up in the first place were true geniuses and given the time frame and how much more susceptible it was to corruption and conspiracy; I have a theory that the world leaders of the time likely banded together to create religion as a way of controlling the people. With the governing bodies and religion you've got the carrot and the stick and when the carrot is backing up the stick by enforcing all the same rules wanted by the stick then you've got a firm stranglehold on the masses and few will fight against it. I know that religion has been around for longer than civilized society but the governing bodies found a way to mold and control it to their benefit and to this day people are still slaves to it's influence. Right down to the stupidest laws/practices like circumcision and monogamy. Ya, baby dick mutilation, thx Jews! Edit: Ya I know psychology in it's current form didn't even exist until the current century but when I speak of it's influence on the bible, I don't mean it in it's official form but only in what people learned in those times of how to control the people. The phrase Neuro-linguistic programming comes to mind but I can't think of an example at current as to how it applies. Much psychology went into creation of the bible. I don't doubt that the people that made up the original bible stories were smart beyond their time to come up with such compelling tales as to keep people believing through the centuries. Things like psychology, facts and politics went into those pages mixed in with all the fairy tales. Very well done indeed. How psychological do you think they were in the BC era? And do you really think "fairy tales" were in existence at that time in mankind's history? Or back to my previous question, how "intelligent" on this kind of level do you feel people in the BC era were? And most these people that are included in the scriptures, or well the ones that wrote the things included in the scriptures didn't personally know one another. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Wed 11/09/16 11:56 AM
|
|
You frightened of God or something? God has never tried to scare/frighten me, sorry for your unfortunates :(. You're like a beaten housewife that just denies or makes excuses for anything and everything bad that her husband does. You even ignore how your own words contradict you. God doesn't send us to hell for not believing, he just kills us but you somehow see nothing wrong with that. It's worship him and live forever but if you don't then you're dead; you get to embrace that eternal nothingness that you fear so much if you don't believe in and worship him. Bit of irony there really; I mean the way that even within the religion itself it blends reality and fantasy and it does it so great. Step into the rabbit hole Alice, all will be well.. That's a good illustration, Lazarus. In a similar vein, I have frequently referred to God as a cosmic-level deadbeat dad. If you think about it, all the parallels are there, including the part where some of his abandoned children defend anything he does, including bending over backwards to make excuses for him and his absence. His absence? I see and talk too God every day, sorry you miss out my friend. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
You frightened of God or something? God has never tried to scare/frighten me, sorry for your unfortunates :(. You're like a beaten housewife that just denies or makes excuses for anything and everything bad that her husband does. You even ignore how your own words contradict you. God doesn't send us to hell for not believing, he just kills us but you somehow see nothing wrong with that. It's worship him and live forever but if you don't then you're dead; you get to embrace that eternal nothingness that you fear so much if you don't believe in and worship him. Bit of irony there really; I mean the way that even within the religion itself it blends reality and fantasy and it does it so great. Step into the rabbit hole Alice, all will be well.. No, God doesn't send us to hell for not believing. Most too all of us will go to hell eventually if we're not living when Jesus returns for the final judgement. Thus, why Hell gives up the dead for judgement. Hell is nothing more then the grave, thus why i've spoken numerous times about hell being an old time word for the grave.... a holding place for the dead. God "kills" no one. God gives judgement of the laws he's spoken. Regardless if you give them merit or not, that is by your own choice. That is what we are judged on. you get to embrace that eternal nothingness that you fear so much if you don't believe in and worship him. Why always the personal attacks as above? Who ever said anything about fearing anything? Why fear death? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
Ya and if you have a father that promises to beat you and burn you for all of eternity if you don't love him then I'm sure you love him purely because he created you? >,> There is no burning for eternity. You either receive eternal life through Jesus Christ, or eternal death because of sin. Revelation 20 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And there is no indication that it will be "torment" for those that were not found in the book of life. Just specifically references "second death" And this is also fairly clear as the previous verse in that chapter states the following 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. But again does not say man/woman will be tormented day and night, nor "insinuates" it. While I personally agree with you as regards what Hell was supposed to be (One of the few things that the Witnesses got right, IMO.), I'm sure that you know that there are many other passages that can easily be interpreted as saying that Hell is a place of fiery torment. (So, I won't bother quoting them.) And, this is another example that makes my earlier point about the vast differences in beliefs even among different sects of the same religion; a situation that shouldn't be observed, if ONE god were behind said religion. But, that still doesn't overturn Lazarus' point. If your human father told you that he would reward you for obeying him, but would literally kill you if you don't, would you feel impelled to love him? Or, would you just fear him? And, this is another example that makes my earlier point about the vast differences in beliefs even among different sects of the same religion; a situation that shouldn't be observed, if ONE god were behind said religion. Yeah, Satan's torment. Thus the reason for Hell in the first place. It is a "holding place" for Satan until God's final judgement. How does that statement relate to my statement about God supposedly saying contradictory things depending upon which middleman/sect is speaking? Why does God need a holding cell for Satan, anyway? He's GOD. Why wait for the final judgement? All of us little peons down here have to suffer while he delays the inevitable. That's also not very loving. But, that still doesn't overturn Lazarus' point. If your human father told you that he would reward you for obeying him, but would literally kill you if you don't, would you feel impelled to love him? Or, would you just fear him? No, you can't scare someone or threaten someone into loving you. Apparently God and many of his spokesmen don't share that opinion with you. I do, though. Nor would I "fear" him. At that level, eternal death would be a blessing in comparison to eternal life. Well, I have to agree with you there. Living forever while being compelled to worship a cosmic tyrant doesn't sound like much fun to me, either. How does that statement relate to my statement about God supposedly saying contradictory things depending upon which middleman/sect is speaking? Why does God need a holding cell for Satan, anyway? He's GOD. Why wait for the final judgement? All of us little peons down here have to suffer while he delays the inevitable. That's also not very loving. Because God allows Satan to have power in the Earth. Not saying total power, control, but some power on Earth. To cause havoc and "disruptions". As that was one of the downfalls/side effects of us being kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Apparently God and many of his spokesmen don't share that opinion with you. I do, though. You frightened of God or something? God has never tried to scare/frighten me, sorry for your unfortunates :(. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
Ya and if you have a father that promises to beat you and burn you for all of eternity if you don't love him then I'm sure you love him purely because he created you? >,> There is no burning for eternity. You either receive eternal life through Jesus Christ, or eternal death because of sin. Revelation 20 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And there is no indication that it will be "torment" for those that were not found in the book of life. Just specifically references "second death" And this is also fairly clear as the previous verse in that chapter states the following 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. But again does not say man/woman will be tormented day and night, nor "insinuates" it. While I personally agree with you as regards what Hell was supposed to be (One of the few things that the Witnesses got right, IMO.), I'm sure that you know that there are many other passages that can easily be interpreted as saying that Hell is a place of fiery torment. (So, I won't bother quoting them.) And, this is another example that makes my earlier point about the vast differences in beliefs even among different sects of the same religion; a situation that shouldn't be observed, if ONE god were behind said religion. But, that still doesn't overturn Lazarus' point. If your human father told you that he would reward you for obeying him, but would literally kill you if you don't, would you feel impelled to love him? Or, would you just fear him? And, this is another example that makes my earlier point about the vast differences in beliefs even among different sects of the same religion; a situation that shouldn't be observed, if ONE god were behind said religion. Yeah, Satan's torment. Thus the reason for Hell in the first place. It is a "holding place" for Satan until God's final judgement. But, that still doesn't overturn Lazarus' point. If your human father told you that he would reward you for obeying him, but would literally kill you if you don't, would you feel impelled to love him? Or, would you just fear him? No, you can't scare someone or threaten someone into loving you. Nor would I "fear" him. At that level, eternal death would be a blessing in comparison to eternal life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
Loving God is just that reason. It's not about making browny points to gain anything, it's not about "assuring" your afterlife, it's not about avoiding punishment or in the hopes to receive a reward. It is loving God for he is God, he is our creator, our giver, our provider. It's for the plain sake of loving God, again not to gain anything or better assure anything for one's self. Ya and if you have a father that promises to beat you and burn you for all of eternity if you don't love him then I'm sure you love him purely because he created you? >,> I watch supernatural and it is entertaining but it's far from being my favorite. It lacks substance. Basically every episode is the same. Guy A is feeling something but doesn't want to admit it to guy B and so there's that underlying tension throughout the episode as they fight demons, ghosts and the paranormal in general with the help of demons, angels or in the older seasons moreso, other hunters. My favorite show is game of thrones, so many different characters and angles and it's filmed in 3 different countries. A total masterpiece of a show. Also nearly no-one is off limits from being slaughtered. I've already had at least 2-3 people I was rooting for in the show die. I know, that was totally off topic but who cares, lol. The forums are for conversation so if meaningful conversation happens amidst pointless god debates, so be it. But ya, fear of death is a main driver for religion but you also have to think that back when the first religions were invented, people had an average life span of what, 20? Without the thought that there could be something beyond that life, total anarchy must have ruled the planet. I mean if I could only live to 30 years max, damn rights I'd kill anyone I needed to in order to make those years satisfactory. Unless I had fear of screwing up a much longer life span beyond that one. So religion is not only to cover fear of death but there as a purpose for life when most people don't really have one beyond get rich, fall in love, buy a house with a white picket fence, blah blah and many people give up on those things early in life if they're not charismatic, an intellectual, born with godlike looks or born into money(few other things perhaps but you get my meaning). Well, I like it, anyway. I really like the way they manage to work a little humor into each episode, to break the tension, without turning it into a farce. I've never seen Game of Thrones, so I can't comment on it, but I'm glad that you like it. Well, hey, it's your thread, so by golly you can talk about whatever you want, right? Good point about the lifespans back in ancient times. Fear of death was a more pressing concern back then! You're right about religion providing a purpose in life for many, too. That's a good point. In fact, the cult I was raised in (Jehovah's Witnesses) often touted the fact that serving God gave our life purpose. And, in a similar vein, religion also provides a social network for people who might not otherwise have one. (Like me.) Of course, that can be a two-edged sword in some cases. In the case of the JWs, if a member decides that he/she no longer believes in the Witness dogma, he/she is labelled an "apostate," and is shunned. So, any member who is having doubts has to consider the possibility that if he/she speaks up about them, it could cause him/her to suddenly lose all of his/her "friends." (And family.) Once again, the dark side of religion rears its ugly head. Ya, a couple scenes in supernatural gave me a good laugh.. Pudding!! Good point about JW's, kinda reminds me of Scientologists. The thing that annoys me(personally) about Scientology is that before I read into it I had thought that it was a religion based on science; which would actually be a sensible thing in this day and age but it turned out to be a bunch of cultist nutbags that are so bad even people of the old religions don't like/respect them. But then I guess they wouldn't if it was a religion based on science either but pretty much no one likes them unless they are one of them. Jehovahs are not "Christian" JW’s believe that Jesus Christ was a perfect man, and that He is a person distinct from God the Father. However, they also teach that before His Earthly life, Jesus was a spirit creature, Michael the archangel, who was created by God and became the Messiah at His baptism. According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus is a mighty one, although not almighty as Jehovah God is. According to John 1:1 in their Bible, The New World Translation, Christ is “a god,” but not “the God.” They teach that Jesus “was and is and always will be beneath Jehovah” and that “Christ and God are not coequal”. In the "Christian" views, Jesus is God. Repeated through the scriptures multiple time, the most said/seen is "The Lord Thy God". And Jesus couldn't very be Michael the archangel. Daniel 12 1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. then we have in the same book 8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? That would mean by the views of JW's that Daniel saw Michael "Jesus" and told "Jesus" about it in third person eg., "O my Lord.." And many other differences between the two beliefs. Jehovahs if I'm not mistaken even have their own "bible", and do not site from or reference the Christian bible. We are "Christ"ians because we believe Jesus too be the "Christ" prophesied. Jehovahs don't, they believe him just too be a wise man at the least. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
Ya and if you have a father that promises to beat you and burn you for all of eternity if you don't love him then I'm sure you love him purely because he created you? >,> There is no burning for eternity. You either receive eternal life through Jesus Christ, or eternal death because of sin. Revelation 20 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And there is no indication that it will be "torment" for those that were not found in the book of life. Just specifically references "second death" And this is also fairly clear as the previous verse in that chapter states the following 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. But again does not say man/woman will be tormented day and night, nor "insinuates" it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
Cannot believe this went on for 45 pages. Easy answer. You will find out the truth when you die. All the best. Lulz... But for us atheists that answer's a bit of of a dead end since we're magot-food when we die. The answer you favour in this life dictates whether you seek and generate your love in this world or whether it is diluted here by the perceived insurance you shall receive in an after life. So to me God is a dilutter of love Good point, Sir. By demanding love, and promising compensation for it, God diminishes it. For, true love has to be given, not taken. Or, to put it another way: It is far better to be a good and loving person for the sake of being that way, rather than trying to be that way in order to receive a reward and/or avoid punishment from Skydaddy. Loving God is just that reason. It's not about making browny points to gain anything, it's not about "assuring" your afterlife, it's not about avoiding punishment or in the hopes to receive a reward. It is loving God for he is God, he is our creator, our giver, our provider. It's for the plain sake of loving God, again not to gain anything or better assure anything for one's self. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More semantics. Trying to muddy the water. I know from reading your posts that you possess the intelligence to grasp the point of my Ra illustration. To truly be honest, don't know how to exceptionally take this post... nor do I know the "ra illustration" reference... if it was a previous reference in the thread, I apologize for my memory. All right, then. I'll take your word for it. I will now explain. In your previous post, you quoted part of one of my statements where I said: "Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra..." and you replied, "Who's "selling" anything? We're here for the discussions at hand. Not trying to convert you or make you believe my friend. Just expressing details/information(s) on the discussion at hand." I suppose it's my fault for wording it that way, but that wasn't even the point. I know that you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to "unconvert" you. We are just having a discussion. I realize that. Allow me to rephrase the Ra illustration, and hopefully the point will now be clear: If we were debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Ra, and I was arguing in favor of accepting these stories as being factual based on flimsy evidence, spin, and special pleading like you have at times throughout our discussion thus far, you would call me on it. You would examine the evidence that I put forward with logic and common sense, because you wouldn't be biased in favor of the Ra stories. Quite the opposite, actually. And, this would be true regardless of which deity (Other than Jesus and Yahweh, of course.) we were discussing. I just picked Ra at random. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is. That's what I've been demonstrating. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is You can elaborate on that if you wish. But "evidence" is only as valuable as one wishes for it to have or allows it to have. There is no 100% accurate for sure evidence for anything in this world, of course unless one allows it to "persuade" them it does have the sufficient evidence they need or are looking for. Well, I already have been, throughout this debate. But, I will continue to do so, for as long as I have the time. And, yes, I agree that there is no evidence that is 100% proof of anything. We established that already. That said, most of us have fairly equivalent standards for quantifying the relative strength or weakness of evidence, as long as we have no bias for or against said evidence. Which, again, was my point with the Ra illustration. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. However, if he also said that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him and empowered him to perform this feat in order to prove to him that his atheist philosophy was wrong, I daresay that, while you would still be highly skeptical of his claim, your skepticism would be slightly less than before, because of your personal belief that Jesus can do pretty much anything. So, your bias would affect how you would weigh his evidence, even if only slightly in this case. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. You say that today, but would it have any merit as of tomorrow that it happened? Merit enough to even pursue the possible evidence of it happening? Those questions miss the point, but I will nevertheless answer them with a question of my own: How much less merit, then, should extraordinary claims made two thousand years ago have? Because of the direction of the discussion and according... Siberian unicorn Tomsk State University believe they've found fossil evidence of a Siberian unicorn prancing around just 29,000 years ago — more than 300,000 years after they were thought to have gone extinct. So in fact "unicorns" actually scientifically "did" exist. Mmm, not really. A rhino is not a unicorn. See, for example:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/03/29/did-unicorns-co-exist-with-humans-yes-but-they-were-just-rhinos/ Of course, I did note that you put quotation marks around the word "unicorns," so I am assuming that you are implying that these ancient rhinos were the basis of the unicorn legend, and that therefore, in a sense, unicorns did exist. If so, I have to agree that that is a plausible theory. That said, I probably gave you the wrong impression when I quoted the Bible verses about unicorns, anyway. I wasn't saying that since the Bible refers to unicorns, and unicorns are mythical animals, that that proves the Bible is wrong. I only posted those quotes because Lazarus mentioned these mythical animals, and I thought it ironic that he mentioned them in a thread where we were discussing the Bible and I knew that the Bible referred to them. My guess is that the translators of the KJV needed a word to describe a large, four-footed, horned animal, and they picked "unicorn" because that was a term for such a creature that most people at the time were familiar with. I don't think the animal in question was really a unicorn. (BTW-The Strong's definition of the Hebrew word in question is "wild ox.") http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythic-creatures/land-creatures-of-the-earth/unicorns-west-and-east/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
There are thousands, perhaps millions of people screaming for god to give them proof, to talk to them not in some dusty old book but in real life and he gives them nothing. Far as I'm concerned even if he does exist(and that's one hell of a stretch) He is so condescending and rude that I want nothing to do with him. I mean he must not be a very good spirit in the first place considering the only way he can get people to choose him is by giving them a 2 step multiple choice. Choose him or burn in the fires of hell for eternity. He's like Hitler but worse... I mean sure, maybe I'm wrong and he is a loving god, a VERY loving god, problem is all that love is going directly into a mirror.. There it is, right there. Well said, Lazarus. If he exists, he is like a man driving a car while his children fight with each other in the back seat over something he instructed them to do. And, he continues driving along obliviously as his children's arguing turns violent and they kill each other. But, he says nothing the whole time. Think of all the arguing and violence in the world that stems from arguments over who's version of Skydaddy is the correct one. Not just between differing religions, but between different sects of the same religion. (Catholics and Protestants, anyone?) Meanwhile, the one person in all the universe who could end it sits on his cloud and remains strangely silent. Oh well. Perhaps he is preoccupied with something. Like whittling. Or playing Grand Theft Cherub on his GodBox. :P That would kind of beat the purpose of this life and the level of "love". We believe in God because we've seen and felt his presence, his love. We "choose" to obey God, follow after him and love him in all his wondrous ways. If he made some grand appearance, people wouldn't believe/follow out of "wanting to" or "faith"... they would believe because they had to, they would have no other choice. And we've seen how that obviously works with mankind, even personally knowing God. We still turned away from God and his desires, still was disobedient even knowing him first hand person to person. Ah, so the purpose of this life is to suffer for God. Endure all the pain and anguish, while still loving and obeying this cosmic-level deadbeat dad. And you call that "love?" Once again, you describe an unloving god as well as I can. No offense, but it is my thought that what you perceive of as God's presence is merely a case of your mind telling you what you want to hear. But, let's just say you're right. If you really have felt God's presence, then you at least have some reason for believing what you believe. But, what about all the people like me, who sincerely worshiped this god for decades, yet never felt anything? What about all the people out there who suffer, day after day, crying out to this god, who never feel anything...or hear anything...or receive any relief. What makes you, and some of the other people that I've debated this topic with who make similar claims of feeling God's presence or hearing him speak to them, so special? Why do you guys get "Damscus road" stuff, and the rest of us don't? In addition to the fact that there is an unstated conceit contained in these claims in many cases (i.e. "Well, I guess I'm just more holy than you are. That's why God helped me find my car keys, while at the same time letting your wife die of cancer." I'm not accusing you of that. You haven't acted that way thus far. But I have actually witnessed exchanges very similar to my example.), it is also quite unfair for an omnipresent god, who supposedly loves his children, to make his presence felt by some and not by others. You say you "choose" to follow God, and that if he made a grand appearance, that would change; that we would have to. I'm sorry, but isn't that what most Christians believe is going to happen at some point anyway? If so...if that is the ultimate solution that God is going to employ at some point...why wait?! If it's the thing to do, then do it already! End the needless fighting and suffering. That said, I wasn't thinking of that kind of action on his part anyway. Going back to my illustration of the man driving the car while his children fight in the back seat-We would expect this man to do something before his children kill each other, right? However, we would NOT expect him to pull over and kill the children who are incorrect about what he instructed them to do, while leaving alive the one(s) who are correct. No, what we would expect him to do is to open his damn mouth and tell the children who is correct, thus ending the argument by removing the reason for the argument. That's what I mean that God could do; open his mouth and state for the record who is right. Then, it would still be up to all of us to decide if we want to toe his line or not. But, at least we would all know for certain, without needing to have it explained to us by middlemen who all say something different, where his line is. I reject your assertion anyway. For one thing, according to the Bible, Israel received Yahweh's commands straight from the horse's mouth, or at least from one of his angels, yet they still chose whether or not they wanted to obey him. So, just because he overcomes his shyness and speaks up, that doesn't mean that we no longer have a choice. Of course, the argument can be made that none of us really has a choice anyway since, as Lazarus said, our choices are: 1.Serve God. 2. Don't serve God. Get obliterated. Or burn in Hell. (Depending on which middleman who are speaking to.) Finally, consider this:The angels are heavenly beings, superior to we lowly humans in every way. Right? Well, according to the Bible, vast numbers of them (Revelation seems to be saying that it was a third of them, as you no doubt know.) rebelled against God. This, despite the fact that they never had to suffer with infirmities, starvation, illness, or any number of things that go hand in hand with being human. Furthermore, they never had to suffer any of those things while at the same time having to wonder whether or not God even exists! They knew full well of his existence, having been in his presence. They also knew what he was like better than any of us ever can. They knew whether or not he always keeps his promises, for instance. And, yet...many, many of them rebelled. So, I maintain that it is unfair, and unloving, for God to demand that we lesser beings, who have so much less to go on than his angelic sons did, to credulously accept the muddled, boring, convoluted, and inconsistent writings of ancient primitives as HIS WORD; and follow whichever version of its story we may have been taught, by whichever middleman that taught it to us, unquestioningly. That said, I wasn't thinking of that kind of action on his part anyway. Going back to my illustration of the man driving the car while his children fight in the back seat-We would expect this man to do something before his children kill each other, right? However, we would NOT expect him to pull over and kill the children who are incorrect about what he instructed them to do, while leaving alive the one(s) who are correct. No, what we would expect him to do is to open his damn mouth and tell the children who is correct, thus ending the argument by removing the reason for the argument. That's what I mean that God could do; open his mouth and state for the record who is right. Then, it would still be up to all of us to decide if we want to toe his line or not. But, at least we would all know for certain, without needing to have it explained to us by middlemen who all say something different, where his line is But God has, he just did it "yesterday" and you don't believe in what we have gathered together through many many separate situations and times in what we now call the "Holy Bible". No, he hasn't. What we have is a collection of ancient writings that translators have to translate for us, as most of us cannot read Hebrew and Greek, that claim to be speaking for him. Furthermore, as you probably know, there was much controversy in the early days regarding which books were going to be included in the canon. In fact, the debates over which books to include in the canon went on for much longer than you and I have even been alive. And, there still isn't one definitive version. After all, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Bibles are all different. That adds another layer of uncertainty. How does one even determine which collection of books to accept? On this topic, consider this: The Book of Enoch was one of the most highly attested books in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church still consider it canonical, and the canonical book of Jude quotes from it. Yet, it is not a part of the Bible canon. Sounds like we have a real clear picture of what God wanted us to know. Not. Going back to my example again-We wouldn't expect that father driving the car to scribble down a note, written in Chinese, that explains what he actually said, toss it on the floor of the car, and then expect his kids to notice it, pick it up, and figure out how to read Chinese, before killing each other. No, we would expect him to open his mouth and communicate with his children in a clear and understandable manner exactly what he wanted them to know. I expect the same from an All-Knowing and All-Wise God. No, he hasn't. What we have is a collection of ancient writings that translators have to translate for us, as most of us cannot read Hebrew and Greek, that claim to be speaking for him. Not too point out the obvious, but that is because that was the language spoken at that time. Of course the original wouldn't have been in english, it wasn't even in existence at that time. Furthermore, as you probably know, there was much controversy in the early days regarding which books were going to be included in the canon. In fact, the debates over which books to include in the canon went on for much longer than you and I have even been alive. And, there still isn't one definitive version. After all, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Bibles are all different. That adds another layer of uncertainty. How does one even determine which collection of books to accept? That is because the bible only contains the important books that we have pertaining to salvation and or how things came about that possibly effected such. Eg., reason the OT is included in most bible even though they pertain no direct knowledge/information regarding salvation. And of course Catholics, Protestant, and Jewish bibles are different, they are different beliefs in the long run. Jews are still waiting for their promised messiah as they didn't believe Jesus was whom the prophecies spoke of that was to come. Catholics are not "Christian". Thus they have confession booths, the pope, ect. And Jesus has said he is the only path too Heaven. No one comes between man and Jesus or before Jesus. Now confession booths in general, not saying they are a bad thing. As we are told to confess our sins. But more towards the pope and what not area. Nothing wrong with him per say, just he's no more important in that way then Joe Bob down the street, he's no closer too God then anyone else. On this topic, consider this: The Book of Enoch was one of the most highly attested books in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church still consider it canonical, and the canonical book of Jude quotes from it. Yet, it is not a part of the Bible canon. Sounds like we have a real clear picture of what God wanted us to know. Not. The book of Enoch is a Jewish book, and again as my previous statement has nothing too do with Jesus Christ or "Christians". So still no comparison between them and isn't another "canonical" in it all. Not the same belief, no fighting or arguing, no nothing of such. All the books of the OT are Jewish books, too! Anyway...that's what you say now. But, it was considered to be the word of God for longer than you and I have been alive by many who called themselves Christians. And, as I said, the Ethiopian Orthodox CHRISTIAN Church still considers it to be. How can you be so sure that you are right, and they are wrong. You're a Christian, and they are Christians. I would also point out that many of the books in the Bible do not mention Jesus. Are you saying that they shouldn't be in the Bible, either? But, once again, you're making my point for me. You say one thing, other Christians say something else...meanwhile "Dad" just keeps driving, saying nothing. You'd think he could at least speak up and tell us which holy books are his official holy books. All the books of the OT are Jewish books, too! Very correct. The OT is not "Christian". They are kept in the bible for history reference. Any laws contained in the OT have been fulfilled with Jesus' crucifixion, thus why he stated "Think not that I come to change the law, but too fulfill". Sorry if those aren't the EXACT words. Then while he was on the cross, he bowed his head and said "it" is finished. Just again, Jews don't believe Jesus too have been the prophesied messiah. So thus the break of from Jewish to Christianity began. But, it was considered to be the word of God for longer than you and I have been alive by many who called themselves Christians. Not saying it's not the word of God. It was indeed the laws we were to abide by at the time of that "covenant". Now that covenant is fulfilled and we live by another covenant signed in Jesus' blood. Thus again the separation of Jews and Christians. I would also point out that many of the books in the Bible do not mention Jesus. Are you saying that they shouldn't be in the Bible, either? The scriptures/books contained in the every day bible are there to either put things in context, or too directly give us laws/information. Just because they don't reference Jesus specifically is not relative. The books "epistles" contained in the bible were not written to specifically be gathered together into one book. They were epistles too a certain group of people for a certain reason. But, once again, you're making my point for me. You say one thing, other Christians say something else...meanwhile "Dad" just keeps driving, saying nothing. You'd think he could at least speak up and tell us which holy books are his official holy books. Why does "Dad" have to repeat himself? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
There are thousands, perhaps millions of people screaming for god to give them proof, to talk to them not in some dusty old book but in real life and he gives them nothing. Far as I'm concerned even if he does exist(and that's one hell of a stretch) He is so condescending and rude that I want nothing to do with him. I mean he must not be a very good spirit in the first place considering the only way he can get people to choose him is by giving them a 2 step multiple choice. Choose him or burn in the fires of hell for eternity. He's like Hitler but worse... I mean sure, maybe I'm wrong and he is a loving god, a VERY loving god, problem is all that love is going directly into a mirror.. There it is, right there. Well said, Lazarus. If he exists, he is like a man driving a car while his children fight with each other in the back seat over something he instructed them to do. And, he continues driving along obliviously as his children's arguing turns violent and they kill each other. But, he says nothing the whole time. Think of all the arguing and violence in the world that stems from arguments over who's version of Skydaddy is the correct one. Not just between differing religions, but between different sects of the same religion. (Catholics and Protestants, anyone?) Meanwhile, the one person in all the universe who could end it sits on his cloud and remains strangely silent. Oh well. Perhaps he is preoccupied with something. Like whittling. Or playing Grand Theft Cherub on his GodBox. :P That would kind of beat the purpose of this life and the level of "love". We believe in God because we've seen and felt his presence, his love. We "choose" to obey God, follow after him and love him in all his wondrous ways. If he made some grand appearance, people wouldn't believe/follow out of "wanting to" or "faith"... they would believe because they had to, they would have no other choice. And we've seen how that obviously works with mankind, even personally knowing God. We still turned away from God and his desires, still was disobedient even knowing him first hand person to person. Ah, so the purpose of this life is to suffer for God. Endure all the pain and anguish, while still loving and obeying this cosmic-level deadbeat dad. And you call that "love?" Once again, you describe an unloving god as well as I can. No offense, but it is my thought that what you perceive of as God's presence is merely a case of your mind telling you what you want to hear. But, let's just say you're right. If you really have felt God's presence, then you at least have some reason for believing what you believe. But, what about all the people like me, who sincerely worshiped this god for decades, yet never felt anything? What about all the people out there who suffer, day after day, crying out to this god, who never feel anything...or hear anything...or receive any relief. What makes you, and some of the other people that I've debated this topic with who make similar claims of feeling God's presence or hearing him speak to them, so special? Why do you guys get "Damscus road" stuff, and the rest of us don't? In addition to the fact that there is an unstated conceit contained in these claims in many cases (i.e. "Well, I guess I'm just more holy than you are. That's why God helped me find my car keys, while at the same time letting your wife die of cancer." I'm not accusing you of that. You haven't acted that way thus far. But I have actually witnessed exchanges very similar to my example.), it is also quite unfair for an omnipresent god, who supposedly loves his children, to make his presence felt by some and not by others. You say you "choose" to follow God, and that if he made a grand appearance, that would change; that we would have to. I'm sorry, but isn't that what most Christians believe is going to happen at some point anyway? If so...if that is the ultimate solution that God is going to employ at some point...why wait?! If it's the thing to do, then do it already! End the needless fighting and suffering. That said, I wasn't thinking of that kind of action on his part anyway. Going back to my illustration of the man driving the car while his children fight in the back seat-We would expect this man to do something before his children kill each other, right? However, we would NOT expect him to pull over and kill the children who are incorrect about what he instructed them to do, while leaving alive the one(s) who are correct. No, what we would expect him to do is to open his damn mouth and tell the children who is correct, thus ending the argument by removing the reason for the argument. That's what I mean that God could do; open his mouth and state for the record who is right. Then, it would still be up to all of us to decide if we want to toe his line or not. But, at least we would all know for certain, without needing to have it explained to us by middlemen who all say something different, where his line is. I reject your assertion anyway. For one thing, according to the Bible, Israel received Yahweh's commands straight from the horse's mouth, or at least from one of his angels, yet they still chose whether or not they wanted to obey him. So, just because he overcomes his shyness and speaks up, that doesn't mean that we no longer have a choice. Of course, the argument can be made that none of us really has a choice anyway since, as Lazarus said, our choices are: 1.Serve God. 2. Don't serve God. Get obliterated. Or burn in Hell. (Depending on which middleman who are speaking to.) Finally, consider this:The angels are heavenly beings, superior to we lowly humans in every way. Right? Well, according to the Bible, vast numbers of them (Revelation seems to be saying that it was a third of them, as you no doubt know.) rebelled against God. This, despite the fact that they never had to suffer with infirmities, starvation, illness, or any number of things that go hand in hand with being human. Furthermore, they never had to suffer any of those things while at the same time having to wonder whether or not God even exists! They knew full well of his existence, having been in his presence. They also knew what he was like better than any of us ever can. They knew whether or not he always keeps his promises, for instance. And, yet...many, many of them rebelled. So, I maintain that it is unfair, and unloving, for God to demand that we lesser beings, who have so much less to go on than his angelic sons did, to credulously accept the muddled, boring, convoluted, and inconsistent writings of ancient primitives as HIS WORD; and follow whichever version of its story we may have been taught, by whichever middleman that taught it to us, unquestioningly. That said, I wasn't thinking of that kind of action on his part anyway. Going back to my illustration of the man driving the car while his children fight in the back seat-We would expect this man to do something before his children kill each other, right? However, we would NOT expect him to pull over and kill the children who are incorrect about what he instructed them to do, while leaving alive the one(s) who are correct. No, what we would expect him to do is to open his damn mouth and tell the children who is correct, thus ending the argument by removing the reason for the argument. That's what I mean that God could do; open his mouth and state for the record who is right. Then, it would still be up to all of us to decide if we want to toe his line or not. But, at least we would all know for certain, without needing to have it explained to us by middlemen who all say something different, where his line is But God has, he just did it "yesterday" and you don't believe in what we have gathered together through many many separate situations and times in what we now call the "Holy Bible". No, he hasn't. What we have is a collection of ancient writings that translators have to translate for us, as most of us cannot read Hebrew and Greek, that claim to be speaking for him. Furthermore, as you probably know, there was much controversy in the early days regarding which books were going to be included in the canon. In fact, the debates over which books to include in the canon went on for much longer than you and I have even been alive. And, there still isn't one definitive version. After all, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Bibles are all different. That adds another layer of uncertainty. How does one even determine which collection of books to accept? On this topic, consider this: The Book of Enoch was one of the most highly attested books in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church still consider it canonical, and the canonical book of Jude quotes from it. Yet, it is not a part of the Bible canon. Sounds like we have a real clear picture of what God wanted us to know. Not. Going back to my example again-We wouldn't expect that father driving the car to scribble down a note, written in Chinese, that explains what he actually said, toss it on the floor of the car, and then expect his kids to notice it, pick it up, and figure out how to read Chinese, before killing each other. No, we would expect him to open his mouth and communicate with his children in a clear and understandable manner exactly what he wanted them to know. I expect the same from an All-Knowing and All-Wise God. No, he hasn't. What we have is a collection of ancient writings that translators have to translate for us, as most of us cannot read Hebrew and Greek, that claim to be speaking for him. Not too point out the obvious, but that is because that was the language spoken at that time. Of course the original wouldn't have been in english, it wasn't even in existence at that time. Furthermore, as you probably know, there was much controversy in the early days regarding which books were going to be included in the canon. In fact, the debates over which books to include in the canon went on for much longer than you and I have even been alive. And, there still isn't one definitive version. After all, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Bibles are all different. That adds another layer of uncertainty. How does one even determine which collection of books to accept? That is because the bible only contains the important books that we have pertaining to salvation and or how things came about that possibly effected such. Eg., reason the OT is included in most bible even though they pertain no direct knowledge/information regarding salvation. And of course Catholics, Protestant, and Jewish bibles are different, they are different beliefs in the long run. Jews are still waiting for their promised messiah as they didn't believe Jesus was whom the prophecies spoke of that was to come. Catholics are not "Christian". Thus they have confession booths, the pope, ect. And Jesus has said he is the only path too Heaven. No one comes between man and Jesus or before Jesus. Now confession booths in general, not saying they are a bad thing. As we are told to confess our sins. But more towards the pope and what not area. Nothing wrong with him per say, just he's no more important in that way then Joe Bob down the street, he's no closer too God then anyone else. On this topic, consider this: The Book of Enoch was one of the most highly attested books in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church still consider it canonical, and the canonical book of Jude quotes from it. Yet, it is not a part of the Bible canon. Sounds like we have a real clear picture of what God wanted us to know. Not. The book of Enoch is a Jewish book, and again as my previous statement has nothing too do with Jesus Christ or "Christians". So still no comparison between them and isn't another "canonical" in it all. Not the same belief, no fighting or arguing, no nothing of such. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
