Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Butterbean on December 06, 2008, 08:08:05 AM
-
liberalismo asked these on the State your World Views thread. Thought they would be a good thread of their own.
At creation, which came first, the humans or the various 'beasts'?
Did Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a Colt or an Ass?
Who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?
Has anyone visually seen God?
How did Judas die?
Does God ever change or is he unchanging?
Was God pleased or displeased with his creations?
Who lived the flood beside Noah, his family and the Animals on the Ark? Did the Nephilim die in the flood or did they live the flood?
Does God ever tempt?
Does God oppose the killing of innocent people?
Where did Aaron die?
-
People who pay too close attention the the "details" of stories miss the forest for the trees. They are much like the Pharisees and Saducees of Jesus' time who were so caught up with their ancient written scrolls waiting for a leader of war and liberator of their people that they missed the pacifist liberator of their people.
-
People who pay too close attention the the "details" of stories miss the forest for the trees. They are much like the Pharisees and Saducees of Jesus' time who were so caught up with their ancient written scrolls waiting for a leader of war and liberator of their people that they missed the pacifist liberator of their people.
good post
At creation, which came first, the humans or the various 'beasts'?
Humans
Did Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a Colt or an Ass?
The colt of an ass
Who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?
God
Has anyone visually seen God?
In true, unveiled form? Yes, Jesus.
How did Judas die?
He hung himself. Later his body fell down and his guts burst open (imo he was already dead at this time).
Does God ever change or is he unchanging?
God is God. Maybe you could be more specific or just ask the question you are thinking about?
Was God pleased or displeased with his creations?
First He was pleased but later displeased.
Who lived the flood beside Noah, his family and the Animals on the Ark? Did the Nephilim die in the flood or did they live the flood?
Are you asking what other people survived the flood other than Noah, his family? None.
What definition are you using for Nephilim?
Does God ever tempt?
If you mean tempt to sin, no, I don't believe so.
Does God oppose the killing of innocent people?
I guess He wouldn't consider anyone as "purely innocent." Again, maybe you could just ask the question you're thinking about?
Where did Aaron die?
I had to look this one up! The question you are thinking about probably involves Deut 10:6 and Numbers 33:30. Here is what I found after googling:
moserah” in Smith's Bible Dictionary
Mo´serah (bonds), Deut. 10:6, apparently the same as Moseroth, Num. 33:30, its plural form, the name of a place near Mount Hor.
-
At creation, which came first, the humans or the various 'beasts'?
Humans
But in Genesis 1, the 'Beasts' came first. Beasts came in Genesis 1:24, Humans came in 1:26.
Who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?
God
Did God do it himself with Fire and Brimstone or did he send 2 angels to do it?
Has anyone visually seen God?
In true, unveiled form? Yes, Jesus.
Not Abraham? What about Jacob? The Bible says that him and God talked face to face.
How did Judas die?
He hung himself. Later his body fell down and his guts burst open (imo he was already dead at this time).
Why doesn't Acts 1:18 mention that he hung himself?
Does God ever change or is he unchanging?
God is God. Maybe you could be more specific or just ask the question you are thinking about?
Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not.
1 Samuel 15:29
The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
Compare to:
Exodus 32:14
And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
1 Samuel 15:35
The Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
Jeremaih 18:8
I [God] will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Was God pleased or displeased with his creations?
First He was pleased but later displeased.
I thought God was omnipotent and omniscient. How could be be pleased at first with something, that he knew would disappoint him and he knew he would later be displeased with?
Who lived the flood beside Noah, his family and the Animals on the Ark? Did the Nephilim die in the flood or did they live the flood?
Are you asking what other people survived the flood other than Noah, his family? None.
What definition are you using for Nephilim?
The bible says that "every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth died" and "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died."
Does God ever tempt?
If you mean tempt to sin, no, I don't believe so.
Tempted at all.
I'll respond to the rest later.
-
Again, why does this matter at all? Does anyone of those questions answers change the point of any of the stories..... come on think about it. These are all moot points.
-
But in Genesis 1, the 'Beasts' came first. Beasts came in Genesis 1:24, Humans came in 1:26.
Oops yes that's right. Sorry, I typed humans by mistake! I meant beasts.
Now to what I think you will refer next...Gen 2:19 ..is that correct?
Did God do it himself with Fire and Brimstone or did he send 2 angels to do it?
Ultimately it was God who did it. According to Gen 19:24, God did it. Could he have done it through the 2 angels? I believe sure He could have. But maybe He didn't.
I know you are referring to Gen 19:13 also. This does not confirm that the angels DID it or not. I suppose it could also mean that collectively it may be done.
Not Abraham? What about Jacob? The Bible says that him and God talked face to face.
Can you give me the scripture reference to which you are referring re: Abraham?
As for Jacob, no Jacob did not see God in unveiled form.
Why doesn't Acts 1:18 mention that he hung himself?
Why should it?
-
Again, why does this matter at all? Does anyone of those questions answers change the point of any of the stories..... come on think about it. These are all moot points.
It matters to those who believe every word printed in the bible is the infallible word of god.
If you except that, then you accept god ordering the killing of innocent children.
-
Again, why does this matter at all? Does anyone of those questions answers change the point of any of the stories..... come on think about it. These are all moot points.
your right lies are lies no need to get into specifics.
-
Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not.
1 Samuel 15:29
The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
Compare to:
Exodus 32:14
And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
1 Samuel 15:35
The Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
Jeremaih 18:8
I [God] will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
The most acceptable explanation to me is that since God knows everything, past, present and future, that the feelings of repentance (sorrow etc) are understandable when bad things happen but I believe that God doesn't CHANGE what His intentions/plans are.
But I do think this is very interesting! I would like MCWAY and loco's thoughts on this as I have wondered about it in the past.
I thought God was omnipotent and omniscient. How could be be pleased at first with something, that he knew would disappoint him and he knew he would later be displeased with?
Do you think that people with children don't know that at some point they will be disappointed w/them?
I believe that yes, God knew that people would disappoint Him. But He gave us life anyway because he loves us.
The bible says that "every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth died" and "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died."
Yes.
Maybe you missed this before: What is your definition of Nephilim?
Tempted at all.
I believe He tests people but does not tempt them to sin. You could just give me the scripture you're thinking about and I will try to address it :)
-
The most acceptable explanation to me is that since God knows everything, past, present and future, that the feelings of repentance (sorrow etc) are understandable when bad things happen but I believe that God doesn't CHANGE what His intentions/plans are.
But I do think this is very interesting! I would like MCWAY and loco's thoughts on this as I have wondered about it in the past.
You rang!!??? ;D
Let's look at Ex. 32.14:
AHHHHH!!!! The old golden calf debacle. Moses interceded on behalf of the people, while they were praising "Bessie" for their deliverance from Egypt. It appears as if the Lord was going to punish the lot of them. Moses got the number cut down to about 3,000, which he and the Levties dealt the sentence themselves. Of course, in the end, Israel kept acting up, resulting in a two-week trip taking 40 years, during which "all of the generation who did evil in the sight of the Lord was consumed". So, I'd say God's sentence was merely delayed. He gave them mercy and they still disobeyed.
1 Sam 15. The Saul incident: Saul had already goofed up in several instances, yet the Lord had mercy on him, anyway. But the final straw came when it came to the Amalekites (cue Ozmo). After 300+ years of assaulting the Israelites unprovoked, the Amalekites had worn out their welcome with God's grace. The edict was given: No more Amalekites....They were to be destroyed, everyone and everything.
You know the rest. Saul spared the king (and a handful of other folks) and kept the choice lifestock, gold, and silver for himself. On top of all, he lied to Samuel's face, claiming he did the Lord's bidding and followed His instructions. A few "moos" and "baaahs" later, the jig was up. By failing to destroy one of Israel's most savage enemies and lying to the prophet, claiming that he'd done God's will, Saul had used up his final lifeline. The kingdom would be stripped from him and his family. GAME OVER!!!
You must also remember that God told Samuel, when he anointed Saul, that Israel ultimately rejected Him, when they demanded an earthly king. God wanted to spare them the headache and problems that usually occur in a regular monarchy. But, they weren't hearing it. Saul had a chance to steer the people's heart back to God. But, by his actions, he failed to do that.
Jer. 18:8 - The first half of that verse pretty much spells it out, regarding the nation of this particular scenario:
If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
In all the verses and the nations/people listed, there's one common theme: A people/nation were steeped in wickedness. God thought to bring judgment on them. HOWEVER, He gave them the opportunity to repent and be spared. The Israelites got another chance; so did Saul; and so did the people of Judah.
Imagine that......God giving people a chance to repent of their sins. I thought He was Mr. Meanie!!!!
-
Again, why does this matter at all? Does anyone of those questions answers change the point of any of the stories..... come on think about it. These are all moot points.
why would you not expect the written word of God to be accountable? your fate depends on the word of God.
-
God who inspired the book may be infallible but humans who penned it are prone to all kinds of sin........ God reveals himself over time not all at once.
-
God who inspired the book may be infallible but humans who penned it are prone to all kinds of sin........ God reveals himself over time not all at once.
oh i didnt know this, were did you find this unknowable info at?
if god knows the future it doesnt make any sense to send jesus to die for our sins, its complete stupidity,I can see that and im human.
there is even a branch of theology that tries to cover up this contradiction. The only way you cannot view this as a gross logical fallacy is if you are close minded.
-
Oh i didn't know this, where did you find this unknowable faith at?
::)
If God knows the future it doesn't make any sense to send Jesus to die for our sins, (if we accept him, it's still our choice) its complete faith,I can see that and i'm human.
WHY?
There is even a branch of theology that tries to cover up this contradiction. The only way you cannot view this as a gross logical fallacy is if you are faithfull.
Congratulations, you have figured out everything regarding life and you need no help from a higher power, life is easy and you will never need a little faith because you are your own God.
The fact is that if you live your life with a little humility toward things you are incapable of knowing life will reward you. Even if you choose not to believe in a higher power would you agree that when you do positive things your life will be more positive and less full of stress? No matter what we choose to believe if we put negativity into the world that's just what we seem to get in return, now we can create all kinds of reasons as to why this happens or we can live peaceably and spiritually through the directions left for us by our ancestors. Those of us who refuse to listen to the past will never change the negativity they are currently in, and they may tell themselves and others that they need no help but no man is an island and everyone needs a hand from time to time.
-
doesn't the bible suggest that the earth is fixed and the sun moves around it?
How did the "creator" get that one wrong?
-
doesn't the bible suggest that the earth is fixed and the sun moves around it.
How did the "creator" get that one wrong
1st. NO
2nd. God who inspired the book may be infallible but humans who penned it are prone to all kinds of errors........
-
1st. NO
really?
are you familiar with this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
-
really?
are you familiar with this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
LMFAO, yes very familiar..... Galileo Galilei (15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642) I don't know what is that a full 1564 years after Christ?
go here please (a random google search of your question producing the results you need)
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2178
no offense but again LMFAO :D
-
LMFAO, yes very familiar..... Galileo Galilei (15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642) I don't know what is that a full 1564 years after Christ?
go here please (a random google search of your question producing the results you need)
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2178
no offense but again LMFAO :D
you don't think the bible says the earth is fixed and the sun moves around it and you're the one laughing?
who do you think the apologist is here?
-
Congratulations, you have figured out everything regarding life and you need no help from a higher power, life is easy and you will never need a little faith because you are your own God.
The fact is that if you live your life with a little humility toward things you are incapable of knowing life will reward you. Even if you choose not to believe in a higher power would you agree that when you do positive things your life will be more positive and less full of stress? No matter what we choose to believe if we put negativity into the world that's just what we seem to get in return, now we can create all kinds of reasons as to why this happens or we can live peaceably and spiritually through the directions left for us by our ancestors. Those of us who refuse to listen to the past will never change the negativity they are currently in, and they may tell themselves and others that they need no help but no man is an island and everyone needs a hand from time to time.
sorry i will spellcheck my posts like other meatbags on this forum. I will never forget where insted of were, i will use you're insted of your. Perhaps(look at the capital) if i wasn't so worried about grammar like you i could form cogent arguments.
"The fact is that if you live your life with a little humility toward things you are incapable of knowing life will reward you. Even if you choose not to believe in a higher power would you agree that when you do positive things your life will be more positive and less full of stress? No matter what we choose to believe if we put negativity into the world that's just what we seem to get in return, now we can create all kinds of reasons as to why this happens or we can live peaceably and spiritually through the directions left for us by our ancestors. Those of us who refuse to listen to the past will never change the negativity they are currently in, and they may tell themselves and others that they need no help but no man is an island and everyone needs a hand from time to time."
when you start your argument with such a ridiculous sentence it is hard for me to be open minded about the rest. Why dont you look up the definition of a fact since you seem to have mistaken faith and fact. What are you even saying? this is pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. The world returns nothing to you, you can be negative and still reap positives and vice versa. You can be the best person in the world and die of cancer. I agree everyone needs help, but im (i'm) not weak minded, your inadequecy is not evidence of god. I ask for help from sources that can offer help, not a god who is mute. Where is he when children in haiti are asking for help,food,clean water. When they are dying by the millions. Maybe they didnt ask right? you would think god in his omnipotence would help hey? Save the apologetic non-sense for the illogical. One hand helping can do more then a thousand clasped in prayer.
-
you don't think the bible says the earth is fixed and the sun moves around it and you're the one laughing?
who do you think the apologist is here?
No I'm laughing that in response to you own question of "doesn't the bible suggest that the earth is fixed and the sun moves around it." your answer was Galileo.
-
No I'm laughing that in response to you own question of "doesn't the bible suggest that the earth is fixed and the sun moves around it." your answer was Galileo.
anyone that believes the absurd shit in the bible shouldn't be laughing at anyone.
-
LOL at me quoting myself after melting over spelling like a tart.
-
sorry i will spellcheck my posts like other meatbags on this forum. I will never forget where insted of were, i will use you're insted of your. Perhaps(look at the capital) if i wasn't so worried about grammar like you i could form cogent arguments.
"The fact is that if you live your life with a little humility toward things you are incapable of knowing life will reward you. Even if you choose not to believe in a higher power would you agree that when you do positive things your life will be more positive and less full of stress? No matter what we choose to believe if we put negativity into the world that's just what we seem to get in return, now we can create all kinds of reasons as to why this happens or we can live peaceably and spiritually through the directions left for us by our ancestors. Those of us who refuse to listen to the past will never change the negativity they are currently in, and they may tell themselves and others that they need no help but no man is an island and everyone needs a hand from time to time."
when you start your sentence with such a ridiculous sentence it is hard for me to be open minded about the rest. 1. Why dont you look up the definition of a fact since you seem to have mistaken faith and fact. What are you even saying? this is pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. The world returns nothing to you, you can be negative and still reap positives and vice versa. You can be the best person in the world and die of cancer. I agree everyone needs help, but im (i'm) not weak minded, your inadequecy is not evidence of god. I ask for help from sources that can offer help, not a god who is mute. Where is he when children in haiti are asking for help,food,clean water. When they are dying by the millions. Maybe they didnt ask right? you would think god in his omnipotence would help hey? Save the apologetic non-sense for the illogical. 2. One hand helping can do more then a thousand clasped in prayer.
1. I do believe it to be fact that the more positive I behave the better and less stressfull my life will be.
2. So very true, but doesn't the modern church send mission trips to these areas to help these people? If you are aware of this fact then ask yourself what you alone have done and I believe you will see why people with deep spiritualism who join together and do these things deserve our appreciation even if you disagree with their beliefs.
-
No I'm laughing that in response to you own question of "doesn't the bible suggest that the earth is fixed and the sun moves around it." your answer was Galileo.
The leaders of the Catholic church at the time of Galileo clearly believed it to be true.
Do you you dispute that fact?
did you even bother to read the result of your random google search?
the entire link can't be boiled down to this sentence: Thus, whether miraculous or not, to say that these verses teach that the Earth continues to stand still, and that the Earth is the center of the Universe, is both a gross misinterpretation and a misapplication of the verse.
Whoops - just a simple mistake of reading the words and drawing the wrong conclusion and then of course misapplying that mistake. It could happen to anyone really.
Those silly cardinals and the pope just make the mistake of misinterpreting their own book.
how convenient
-
The leaders of the Catholic church at the time of Galileo clearly believed it to be true.
Do you you dispute that fact?
NO
did you even bother to read the result of your random google search?
YES
the entire link can't be boiled down to this sentence: Thus, whether miraculous or not, to say that these verses teach that the Earth continues to stand still, and that the Earth is the center of the Universe, is both a gross misinterpretation and a misapplication of the verse.
Whoops - just a simple mistake of reading the words and drawing the wrong conclusion and then of course misapplying that mistake. It could happen to anyone really.
Those silly cardinals and the pope just make the mistake of misinterpreting their own book.
how convenient
again 1st. NO
2nd.
-
So basically the bible is always right and any contradictions are just the error of interpretation by man?
-
So basically the bible is always right and any contradictions are just the error of interpretation by man?
I was gonna say that nooooo God is always right...... but you know what you have convinced me otherwise I formally adopt your ideas and philosophical beliefs and further more THANK YOU for taking the time to train my mind to ask questions about the world on which I live!
Straw Man bringing change in 08!!!!!!
-
Straw Man gave me a choice, a simple choice, red pill or blue pill. I chose to see just how far the rabbit hole went, and it much like the faithless was very shallow. But there is a comfort in the shallowness, a freedom in not believing in a higher power. For I much like a slave or a soldier was very VERY misinformed.
-
I was gonna say that nooooo God is always right...... but you know what you have convinced me otherwise I formally adopt your ideas and philosophical beliefs and further more THANK YOU for taking the time to train my mind to ask questions about the world on which I live!
Straw Man bringing change in 08!!!!!!
Your googlized response basically boils down to the assertion that question/controversy of goecentrism was an error of interpretation. The leaders of the catholic church at the time clearly believed that they were the authority in interpretation so your simple answer of "NO" to my initial question makes no sense.
-
Your googlized response basically boils down to the assertion that question/controversy of goecentrism was an error of interpretation. The leaders of the catholic church at the time clearly believed that they were the authority in interpretation so your simple answer of "NO" to my initial question makes no sense.
Before my answer tho short was not so simple as a small "NO" because it then affirmed my previous post that Men were fallible even if God is not.
However I have since swapped views so, yea take that you stupid faithfull always so faithfull that their life has a purpose.
-
Before my answer tho short was not so simple as a small "NO" because it then affirmed my previous post that Men were fallible even if God is not.
However I have since swapped views so, yea take that you stupid faithfull always so faithfull that their life has a purpose.
you're getting a little defensive aren't you. When did I ever mock your personal faith.
I posted a simple question and you responded back with an even more simple answer (one word "NO")
and then you quoted yourself (and you actually edited your own words from the original quote which is probably something the guys who wrote/rewrote/translated) the bible did a lot too.
Your answer to my question was "NO" and then you quoted yourself as follows:
God who inspired the book may be infallible but humans who penned it are prone to all kinds of errors...
your original quote was:
God who inspired the book may be infallible but humans who penned it are prone to all kinds of sin...
Was it merely a sin/error of the part of the catholic church to believe that the bible suggests the sun revolves around the earth?
we know you think that god exists and is infallible and that's fine but what about the bible? Isn't that what this thread is about?
-
Before my answer tho short was not so simple as a small "NO" because it then affirmed my previous post that Men were fallible even if God is not.
However I have since swapped views so, yea take that you stupid faithfull always so faithfull that their life has a purpose.
typical response, dont try and think just stay in the confines of your box of irrationality. Thinking is to hard, believe in jesus or go to hell.
-
typical response, dont try and think just stay in the confines of your box of irrationality. Thinking is to hard, believe in jesus or go to hell.
ironically, that is the "good news"
-
you're getting a little defensive aren't you. When did I ever mock your personal faith.
I posted a simple question and you responded back with an even more simple answer (one word "NO")
and then you quoted yourself (and you actually edited your own words from the original quote which is probably something the guys who wrote/rewrote/translated) the bible did a lot too.
Your answer to my question was "NO" and then you quoted yourself as follows:
your original quote was:
Was it merely a sin/error of the part of the catholic church to believe that the bible suggests the sun revolves around the earth?
we know you think that god exists and is infallible and that's fine but what about the bible? Isn't that what this thread is about?
Listen I find it funny that my original point was and always has been that .......
People who pay too close attention the the "details" of stories miss the forest for the trees. They are much like the Pharisees and Saducees of Jesus' time who were so caught up with their ancient written scrolls waiting for a leader of war and liberator of their people that they missed the pacifist liberator of their people.
Which I meant as saying that people pay way too much time reading a book (one which is a wonderful road map to life no doubt) when they should actively try to commune personally with God. A persons spiritual journey is a personal journey but can be used to inspire others toward a better life, hence a book with a bunch of stories was written to help those who came after Christ.
So.... to your query above I will respond as I have tried to in past posts but more definitively that yes I do believe God is infallible and no I do not believe the bible is because it was written by man.
"typical response, dont try and think just stay in the confines of your box of irrationality. Thinking is to hard, believe in jesus or go to hell."
By the way I actually do not believe in hell and I do not see that anywhere in my response.... I have found my own faith which some may label radical but I feel fits me the best it's what I choose to believe. And because I don't feel as if I have all the answers to all of mans questions regarding God or "the afterlife" mainly because God has not revealed them all to me I like to think God will give me a repreave for not being correct if I screw a few up.
Ok? are we done here cause I think I am.....
-
So.... to your query above I will respond as I have tried to in past posts but more definitively that yes I do believe God is infallible and no I do not believe the bible is because it was written by man.
this is all you needed to say but you're aware that this opens a whole other can of worms.
We're left with an infallible god (and what kind of god would he/she/it be if they weren't) and a very fallible book written by a bunch of anonymous men
What part of the bible in complete nonsense and should be ignored and what part is from the "infallible god" ....if any?
btw - since you believe the bible was written by man and prone to errors why did you say "no" to my original question.
Why not just say yes but that it's an error (like the hundreds/perhaps thousands of other errors)
-
this is all you needed to say but you're aware that this opens a whole other can of worms.
We're left with an infallible god (and what kind of god would he/she/it be if they weren't) and a very fallible book written by a bunch of anonymous men
What part of the bible in complete nonsense and should be ignored and what part is from the "infallible god" ....if any?
Short answer, the details........ Who cares if "Adam and Eve" ever existed, people sin. Who cares if God flooded the earth, people sucked :). Who cares if God created everything in 6 days or if it was just a symbol, God created everything. etc...... Get my point? Just take from the bible what you need for your personal spiritual journey and don't kill people when they disagree with them. Spiritualism is inherently good it's religion that causes war.......
btw - since you believe was written by man and prone to errors why did you say "no" to my original question.
Maybe I'm missunderstanding your original question I don't know, I'm sorry ;D I said "NO" because I did not dispute your fact.... They did believe it, they were wrong. Just because they were the heads of the Catholic church doesn't make them perfect, and believe me I am in no way defending Catholicism. Ever made a mistake? Well they are also as human.
Why not just say yes but that it's an error (like the hundreds/perhaps thousands of other errors)
-
Maybe I'm missunderstanding your original question I don't know, I'm sorry I said "NO" because I did not dispute your fact.... They did believe it, they were wrong.
uh...ok but you didn't seem to be confused when you initially responded no and then went on to attempt to defend that position (not trying to be a dick just saying it seemed pretty obvious).
Now that we've agreed that the bible has errors - what other parts do you think are errors?
-
Oops yes that's right. Sorry, I typed humans by mistake! I meant beasts.
Now to what I think you will refer next...Gen 2:19 ..is that correct?
In Genesis 1 it says that Beasts came first.
In Genesis 2 it says that Humans came first, and beasts were made for company.
Ultimately it was God who did it. According to Gen 19:24, God did it. Could he have done it through the 2 angels? I believe sure He could have. But maybe He didn't.
I know you are referring to Gen 19:13 also. This does not confirm that the angels DID it or not. I suppose it could also mean that collectively it may be done.
But Genesis 19:13, the Angels tell that God sent them to destroy it. In Genesis 19:24 it says that God himself destroyed it with fire and brimstone.
Can you give me the scripture reference to which you are referring re: Abraham?
As for Jacob, no Jacob did not see God in unveiled form.
Genesis 12:7
And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
Genesis 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him....
Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Why should it?
Because if he hung himself, then that's how he died.
Does God oppose the killing of innocent people?
I guess He wouldn't consider anyone as "purely innocent." Again, maybe you could just ask the question you're thinking about?
Well, Exodus 23:7 says that "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked."
So he clearly had a distinction between the innocent and righteous and the non-innocent or non-righteous.
Where did Aaron die?
I had to look this one up! The question you are thinking about probably involves Deut 10:6 and Numbers 33:30. Here is what I found after googling:
moserah” in Smith's Bible Dictionary
Mo´serah (bonds), Deut. 10:6, apparently the same as Moseroth, Num. 33:30, its plural form, the name of a place near Mount Hor.
No. Mosera is an Israelite station at the "foot" of Mt. Hor. Numbers 33:38 says that he went "up" Mt. Hor and died, but DT 10:6 says that he died at the foot of it.
-
The most acceptable explanation to me is that since God knows everything, past, present and future, that the feelings of repentance (sorrow etc) are understandable when bad things happen but I believe that God doesn't CHANGE what His intentions/plans are.
But I do think this is very interesting! I would like MCWAY and loco's thoughts on this as I have wondered about it in the past.
If he "repents" on something, he is sorry for doing it and regrets it.
If he regrets something, then why did he do it to begin with since he knew that he would regret doing it?
If he 'had' to do it, then is he really all powerful as the bible says? He couldn't be.
Do you think that people with children don't know that at some point they will be disappointed w/them?
They don't know. They can "assume" that they might based on likelihood.
Humans can't create every aspect of their children as God did man. Science proves that Genetics plays a large role in human behavior, so God could easily have made some slight changes to humans so that they would not disappoint him, without ever affecting 'free will' beyond what it already is.
Yes.
Maybe you missed this before: What is your definition of Nephilim?
Apparently they were Giants.
I believe He tests people but does not tempt them to sin. You could just give me the scripture you're thinking about and I will try to address it :)
James 1:13 says that God doesn't tempt at all. Ever.
-
uh...ok but you didn't seem to be confused when you initially responded no and then went on to attempt to defend that position (not trying to be a dick just saying it seemed pretty obvious).
Now that we've agreed that the bible has errors - what other parts do you think are errors?
Way over my head, or attention span ;D
-
Way over my head, or attention span ;D
really?
that might be part of the problem.
-
In Genesis 1 it says that Beasts came first.
In Genesis 2 it says that Humans came first, and beasts were made for company.
No. Gen 2:19: "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them....."
But Genesis 19:13, the Angels tell that God sent them to destroy it. In Genesis 19:24 it says that God himself destroyed it with fire and brimstone.
You may have missed it but I already answered this.
Genesis 12:7
And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
Genesis 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him....
Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
As I said before, Jacob saw Him in veiled form. God is invisible. He can take on whatever form He wants if he wants someone to see something. I see your difficulty w/these verses but they don't preclude Him appearing as "in the whirlwind" or fire etc. imo.
Because if he hung himself, then that's how he died.
I don't see it as a required statement.
Well, Exodus 23:7 says that "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked."
So he clearly had a distinction between the innocent and righteous and the non-innocent or non-righteous.
Yeah, He's specifically talking about the legal system and not to carry out capital punishment on someone for a crime of which they are falsely accused.
No. Mosera is an Israelite station at the "foot" of Mt. Hor. Numbers 33:38 says that he went "up" Mt. Hor and died, but DT 10:6 says that he died at the foot of it.
Can you link me to your source please?
-
You rang!!??? ;D
Let's look at Ex. 32.14:
AHHHHH!!!! The old golden calf debacle. Moses interceded on behalf of the people, while they were praising "Bessie" for their deliverance from Egypt. It appears as if the Lord was going to punish the lot of them. Moses got the number cut down to about 3,000, which he and the Levties dealt the sentence themselves. Of course, in the end, Israel kept acting up, resulting in a two-week trip taking 40 years, during which "all of the generation who did evil in the sight of the Lord was consumed". So, I'd say God's sentence was merely delayed. He gave them mercy and they still disobeyed.
1 Sam 15. The Saul incident: Saul had already goofed up in several instances, yet the Lord had mercy on him, anyway. But the final straw came when it came to the Amalekites (cue Ozmo). After 300+ years of assaulting the Israelites unprovoked, the Amalekites had worn out their welcome with God's grace. The edict was given: No more Amalekites....They were to be destroyed, everyone and everything.
You know the rest. Saul spared the king (and a handful of other folks) and kept the choice lifestock, gold, and silver for himself. On top of all, he lied to Samuel's face, claiming he did the Lord's bidding and followed His instructions. A few "moos" and "baaahs" later, the jig was up. By failing to destroy one of Israel's most savage enemies and lying to the prophet, claiming that he'd done God's will, Saul had used up his final lifeline. The kingdom would be stripped from him and his family. GAME OVER!!!
You must also remember that God told Samuel, when he anointed Saul, that Israel ultimately rejected Him, when they demanded an earthly king. God wanted to spare them the headache and problems that usually occur in a regular monarchy. But, they weren't hearing it. Saul had a chance to steer the people's heart back to God. But, by his actions, he failed to do that.
Jer. 18:8 - The first half of that verse pretty much spells it out, regarding the nation of this particular scenario:
If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
In all the verses and the nations/people listed, there's one common theme: A people/nation were steeped in wickedness. God thought to bring judgment on them. HOWEVER, He gave them the opportunity to repent and be spared. The Israelites got another chance; so did Saul; and so did the people of Judah.
Imagine that......God giving people a chance to repent of their sins. I thought He was Mr. Meanie!!!!
Thanks MCWAY!
If he "repents" on something, he is sorry for doing it and regrets it.
If he regrets something, then why did he do it to begin with since he knew that he would regret doing it?
If he 'had' to do it, then is he really all powerful as the bible says? He couldn't be.
Thought you'd find this interesting (from apologeticspress.org) also:
"If a wicked man turns from his wickedness, God no longer holds the threat against him. If a righteous man turns from righteousness to wickedness, God withdraws the previously promised blessings. It is precisely because God is immutable that His relationship to men, and/or His treatment of them, varies with the changes in their conduct. When the Scriptures thus speak of “God having repented,” the wording is accommodative (viz., written from a human vantage point). As Samuel Davidson has well said: “When repentance is attributed to God, it implies a change in His mode of dealing with men, such as would indicate on their part a change of purpose” (1843, p. 527). From a human vantage point, we view God’s act(s) as “repentance.” But, in reality, God’s immutable law has not changed one iota; only the response of man to that law has changed. Seen in this light, God cannot be accused of any self-contradictory attributes."
They don't know. They can "assume" that they might based on likelihood.
Humans can't create every aspect of their children as God did man. Science proves that Genetics plays a large role in human behavior, so God could easily have made some slight changes to humans so that they would not disappoint him, without ever affecting 'free will' beyond what it already is.
God created man w/o sin. Man, through free will chose to sin and sin entered the world.
I don't see how you mean to not affect free will as it is by changing man a little? It would affect it, right?
And humans still choose to have babies knowing (or assuming) that they will disappoint in the future.
Apparently they were Giants.
Maybe, maybe not. Some say they were great warriors. If Nephilium is a word for great warriors or whatever, they are just people.
-
really?
that might be part of the problem.
sigh
-
let's focus on areas where we agree.
What other parts of the bible do you think are errors made by the human authors?
-
let's focus on areas where we agree.
What other parts of the bible do you think are errors made by the human authors?
Anything people argue about..... I mean every time someone questions the authenticity of the Bible it's always about the same stupid things, any inconsistency or something science can't explain (or can for that matter) in the Bible is always on debate. And why? Why does it matter one way or the other why do people waste their time attempting to defend these things they themselves don't have the answers to. All of these variables that can't be explained now also couldn't be explained then, why?, because humans don't have all the answers (Surprise Surprise). Then you may ask, why would the human authors write about what they didn't have conclusive evidence for? To that I say like any inquisitive mind they simply filled in the blanks to the best of their knowledge, an educated guess if you will. We always look for the most obvious answer to all of our questions.
-
Anything people argue about..... I mean every time someone questions the authenticity of the Bible it's always about the same stupid things, any inconsistency or something science can't explain (or can for that matter) in the Bible is always on debate. And why? Why does it matter one way or the other why do people waste their time attempting to defend these things they themselves don't have the answers to. All of these variables that can't be explained now also couldn't be explained then, why?, because humans don't have all the answers (Surprise Surprise). Then you may ask, why would the human authors write about what they didn't have conclusive evidence for? To that I say like any inquisitive mind they simply filled in the blanks to the best of their knowledge, an educated guess if you will. We always look for the most obvious answer to all of our questions.
so anything that can be argued about is an error or at least a potential error?
If "variables" (whatever those may be) couldn't be explained back then why should we put any credence in a book written back then by a bunch of men. Surely we, as a species have a much better understanding of the natural world today then we did back then. The other "variable" is very delicate matters of life and death and again, why should something written by men a few thousand years ago be given any credence, especially when they were so prone to error?
-
so anything that can be argued about is an error or at least a potential error?
If "variables" (whatever those may be) couldn't be explained back then why should we put any credence in a book written back then by a bunch of men. Surely we, as a species have a much better understanding of the natural world today then we did back then. The other "variable" is very delicate matters of life and death and again, why should something written by men a few thousand years ago be given any credence, especially when they were so prone to error?
That's what I've been saying. The only thing I will say is that if someone reads the Bible looking for some foundation of faith then I'm sure they'll find it. Plus if you believe in God as a Christian it's certainly not gonna lead you in the wrong way! However I have always found it more important to form one's own personal relationship with God, instead of blindly following some old writings of an archaic, poetic, war-prone and highly symbolic society.
-
That's what I've been saying. The only thing I will say is that if someone reads the Bible looking for some foundation of faith then I'm sure they'll find it. Plus if you believe in God as a Christian it's certainly not gonna lead you in the wrong way! However I have always found it more important to form one's own personal relationship with God, instead of blindly following some old writings of an archaic, poetic, war-prone and highly symbolic society.
no evil has been done so fully and passionately than that perpatrated under religious convictions.and faith is the great cop-out the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
-
no evil has been done so fully and passionately than that perpatrated under religious convictions.and faith is the great cop-out the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Are you going to go through every thread and post the same thing? ::)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=248948.msg3538886#msg3538886
-
Are you going to go through every thread and post the same thing? ::)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=248948.msg3538886#msg3538886
you believe in a book that has sticks turning into snakes and you think I'm the one that needs help
-
you believe in a book that has sticks turning into snakes and you think I'm the one that needs help
I asked you a question. I never said you need help.
-
I asked you a question. I never said you need help.
oh ok yes I'll post what I feel.sometimes more than once.
-
no evil has been done so fully and passionately than that perpatrated under religious convictions.and faith is the great cop-out the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
as I already said...... "Spiritualism is inherently good it's religion that causes war......."
-
as I already said...... "Spiritualism is inherently good it's religion that causes war......."
Religion doesn’t cause war. It is merely a vehicle through which wars can be started.
-
Religion doesn’t cause war. It is merely a vehicle through which wars can be started.
That sounds like fancy talk for religion causes war, explain how that's different.
-
A couple of fellas, eg Metushelach and Noach, got real old.
I'm talking several hundred years old here.
That's a big contradiction or difficulty.
Another thing that just doesn't add up is the whole Jesus going from being a little infant to being a grown man.
What's up with that - whatever happened during his childhood and teens?
How can we even know that the baby and the grown man is the same bloke?
Then there's the story about how Moses received the Ten commandments.
How the hell is that supposed to be known?
Only one guy was there to see it - Moses.
And he didn't write anything in the Bible from what I know.
So some guys were brought visions by angels and then later wrote them down.
But how can we all know that they weren't lying their asses off?
At the church meet in Nicea several pieces in the Bible were thrown out and some were included.
There are plenty of difficulties with the whole setup of the Bible IMO.
-
A couple of fellas, eg Metushelach and Noach, got real old.
I'm talking several hundred years old here.
That's a big contradiction or difficulty.
Another thing that just doesn't add up is the whole Jesus going from being a little infant to being a grown man.
What's up with that - whatever happened during his childhood and teens?
How can we even know that the baby and the grown man is the same bloke?
Then there's the story about how Moses received the Ten commandments.
How the hell is that supposed to be known?
Only one guy was there to see it - Moses.
And he didn't write anything in the Bible from what I know.
So some guys were brought visions by angels and then later wrote them down.
But how can we all know that they weren't lying their asses off?
At the church meet in Nicea several pieces in the Bible were thrown out and some were included.
There are plenty of difficulties with the whole setup of the Bible IMO.
great questions, i would love to know what happened also.
the Bible is collection of book that were basically allowed to be included because it fit the agenda correct? supposedly there were books that contradicted the direction in which people in power wanted it to focus upon no?
-
great questions, i would love to know what happened also.
the Bible is collection of book that were basically allowed to be included because it fit the agenda correct? supposedly there were books that contradicted the direction in which people in power wanted it to focus upon no?
Regarding how the books came about - Protestants are critical of Catholics for several reasons, eg the Pope's supreme position.
Some Protestants doesn't even think that Catholics are real Christians.
But they accept the very Bible that the Catholic church decided on during a few church meets?
That just doesn't make any sense either.
Holy Bible?
Regardless if we're Christians or not, how can we even begin to be certain that all parts of the Bible are "legit" when we know how it was decided?
If I were a Christian, I'd be very sceptical about the Bible as a source, and I would use it very carefully.
-
Regarding how the books came about - Protestants are critical of Catholics for several reasons, eg the Pope's supreme position.
Some Protestants doesn't even think that Catholics are real Christians.
But they accept the very Bible that the Catholic church decided on during a few church meets?
That just doesn't make any sense either.
Holy Bible?
Regardless if we're Christians or not, how can we even begin to be certain that all parts of the Bible are "legit" when we know how it was decided?
If I were a Christian, I'd be very sceptical about the Bible as a source, and I would use it very carefully.
Hedgehog,
Protestants do not accept the very Bible that the Catholic church decided on.
The "Catholic" Bible contains many more books which Protestants do not accept as the cannon, and those books are not found in the "Protestant" Bible. So Protestants made their own decision on that one and came up with new translations from the original Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, not from the Latin version translated by the Roman Catholic Church.
Also, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant churches and leaders encourage all Christians to read their own Bible and interpret it themselves, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Christians are encouraged to ask their leaders questions if they want to, but leaders make it very clear that they are fallible men and not the final authority.
-
That sounds like fancy talk for religion causes war, explain how that's different.
I think an analogy that might be used is that guns don't kill people, people kill people?
A gun doesn't stalk around a neighborhood on it's own later shooting someone in the head. A person holding the gun and firing the gun shoots the person and kills them.
Religion itself doesn't cause a war, but people that believe in it, or misinterpret it do...maybe giving their reasons for starting the war as pertaining to something in their religion.
-
A couple of fellas, eg Metushelach and Noach, got real old.
I'm talking several hundred years old here.
That's a big contradiction or difficulty.
You can accept or reject, but that's usually explained by sin having not yet infiltrating the earth as much as it has now. God made Adam and Eve perfect (and w/free will) and then when they sinned sin entered the earth. Over time sickness and diseases and death permeated more and more in a progressive type manner.
If the bible is a bunch of hooey, it would have been quite easy to leave out statements of a dude living to 969.
Another thing that just doesn't add up is the whole Jesus going from being a little infant to being a grown man.
What's up with that - whatever happened during his childhood and teens?
I would love to know that stuff also! There's only one reference of Jesus in his teens in the bible as far as I know....maybe He was like 12.
Then there's the story about how Moses received the Ten commandments.
How the hell is that supposed to be known?
Only one guy was there to see it - Moses.
And he didn't write anything in the Bible from what I know.
Pretty sure he wrote the first 5 books of the O.T.
-
That sounds like fancy talk for religion causes war, explain how that's different.
World Wars I and II had little to do with one’s religious belief. Did the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor, because we were Christians? Did we return the favor, with the bomb on Hiroshima, because they weren’t?
Acquisition of wealth and/or power, greed, or settling personal vendettas is the culprit for war. Whether one uses the vehicle of religion to attain those goals is another matter.
-
A couple of fellas, eg Metushelach and Noach, got real old.
I'm talking several hundred years old here.
That's a big contradiction or difficulty.
Not really!! You'll notice that the lifespan of the people in the OT drop steadily, after the Flood. So, it appears that, after 3 or 4 generations, you get to people barely cracking the century mark; whereas, beforehand living several hundred years was common.
Another thing that just doesn't add up is the whole Jesus going from being a little infant to being a grown man.
What's up with that - whatever happened during his childhood and teens?
How can we even know that the baby and the grown man is the same bloke?
We know that He grew up working as a carpenter. And, we get a brief blurb about His life at age 12.
Who exactly is going to chronicle the life of a teenage carpenter in Nazareth, and what would be the motivation for doing such? Jesus didn't even start His ministry, until He was about 30.
Then there's the story about how Moses received the Ten commandments.
How the hell is that supposed to be known?
Only one guy was there to see it - Moses.
And he didn't write anything in the Bible from what I know.
Ummmm.......there are those first 5 books of the Bible, the Pentateuch (aka the books of Moses).
So some guys were brought visions by angels and then later wrote them down.
But how can we all know that they weren't lying their asses off?
Their movitation for lying would be..............
At the church meet in Nicea several pieces in the Bible were thrown out and some were included.
There are plenty of difficulties with the whole setup of the Bible IMO.
I thought the parts that got chucked were those that were shown to be at odds with the historical teachings of Jesus Christ. If there's some reason why those should have stayed, I'd like to know.
-
great questions, i would love to know what happened also.
the Bible is collection of book that were basically allowed to be included because it fit the agenda correct? supposedly there were books that contradicted the direction in which people in power wanted it to focus upon no?
What agenda would that be?
You forget that the reason we have Protestants, in the first place, is not because somebody found some secret books, which clashed with the books of the Bible. Instead, Protestantism gained its ground because, when people read the Bible (the 66 books that we’ve come to know) for themselves, they saw the HUGE gap, between what the Bible really said and what the Catholic Church claimed it said.
- Justification by faith, not works
- God, through Christ, NOT A PRIEST, forgiving sins
- Mary, not a figure to be worshipped, AT ALL.
- No purgatory, from which dead relatives can be sprung (for the right amount of coin, of course).
Those are just a small sample of what people found out FOR THEMSELVES, once they got to read Scripture, instead of having it read to them in Latin.
-
What agenda would that be?
You forget that the reason we have Protestants, in the first place, is not because somebody found some secret books, which clashed with the books of the Bible. Instead, Protestantism gained its ground because, when people read the Bible (the 66 books that we’ve come to know) for themselves, they saw the HUGE gap, between what the Bible really said and what the Catholic Church claimed it said.
- Justification by faith, not works
- God, through Christ, NOT A PRIEST, forgiving sins
- Mary, not a figure to be worshipped, AT ALL.
- No purgatory, from which dead relatives can be sprung (for the right amount of coin, of course).
Those are just a small sample of what people found out FOR THEMSELVES, once they got to read Scripture, instead of having it read to them in Latin.
wow thats super intersting...as for the agenda i mentioned it was a reference to the general direction that Christians thought would be appropriate for their cause/belief.
so much to learn, its hugely intimidating.
-
Regarding how the books came about - Protestants are critical of Catholics for several reasons, eg the Pope's supreme position.
Some Protestants doesn't even think that Catholics are real Christians.
But they accept the very Bible that the Catholic church decided on during a few church meets?
That just doesn't make any sense either.
Holy Bible?
Regardless if we're Christians or not, how can we even begin to be certain that all parts of the Bible are "legit" when we know how it was decided?
If I were a Christian, I'd be very sceptical about the Bible as a source, and I would use it very carefully.
thats what i dont understand, how can people be certain that under no circumstances the Bible is legit. also there are numerous different fractions of Christianity but for the most part they disagree w/each other. i know i am very ignorant when it comes to this..
-
Not really!! You'll notice that the lifespan of the people in the OT drop steadily, after the Flood. So, it appears that, after 3 or 4 generations, you get to people barely cracking the century mark; whereas, beforehand living several hundred years was common.
We know that He grew up working as a carpenter. And, we get a brief blurb about His life at age 12.
Who exactly is going to chronicle the life of a teenage carpenter in Nazareth, and what would be the motivation for doing such? Jesus didn't even start His ministry, until He was about 30.
Ummmm.......there are those first 5 books of the Bible, the Pentateuch (aka the books of Moses).
But how do we know they were written by Moses?
I thought the parts that got chucked were those that were shown to be at odds with the historical teachings of Jesus Christ. If there's some reason why those should have stayed, I'd like to know.
How "holy" is a book (The Bible) when a church meeting where lots of people have been involved decides on what parts to keep and what parts to throw out?
Both you and I know that the Church have been wrong many times. Eg, the Pope has apologized for past crimes of the Catholic Church.
So how do we know that the meeting when they decided on the Bible weren't one of those times?
The point I'm trying to make here is not so much to question your faith, but rather I ask how those who are Christians aren't more sceptical of the Bible as a source.
-
Not really!! You'll notice that the lifespan of the people in the OT drop steadily, after the Flood. So, it appears that, after 3 or 4 generations, you get to people barely cracking the century mark; whereas, beforehand living several hundred years was common.
MCWAY? Are you saying that you believe that the characters written about in the early bible books are ;
1) Real people?
2) Lived hundreds of years?
Obviously as a critical thinker you'd have some pretty strong evidence for such a belief. I mean you reject certain scientific theories because of a lack of convincing evidence, I know you wouldn't just take something like the above purely on faith! Please share with the forum the evidence so as to silence unbelievers.
Perhaps you could start with evidence for Noah, Moses, Adam etc... and the evidence for their extended life spans? I know you'll be keen to share, as I know you wouldn't believe people could live for hundreds of years without proof.
-
No. Gen 2:19: "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them....."
Genesis 2: 18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Genesis 1: 26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
You may have missed it but I already answered this.
So why would the two passages say different things and not tell the whole story?
As I said before, Jacob saw Him in veiled form. God is invisible. He can take on whatever form He wants if he wants someone to see something. I see your difficulty w/these verses but they don't preclude Him appearing as "in the whirlwind" or fire etc. imo.
Why would the bible say that Jacob saw him face to face if he simply saw him as wind or some other object? Why use the word "face to face"? How do you know that this doesn't mean face to face literally? What makes the other passage trump this one?
I don't see it as a required statement.
It is required if they wanted to be clear.
Yeah, He's specifically talking about the legal system and not to carry out capital punishment on someone for a crime of which they are falsely accused.
The point is that the verse in Exodus 23:7 makes a distinction between the "pure and innocent" and the not pure and not innocent. How can this be if God considers no one innocent? Why even make a distinction? It would seem like we've got 2 authors here writing down something contradictory, with no divine inspiration guiding it all.
Can you link me to your source please?
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/mosera.html
Plus:
Numbers 33:38
DT 10:6
-
Thought you'd find this interesting (from apologeticspress.org) also:
"If a wicked man turns from his wickedness, God no longer holds the threat against him. If a righteous man turns from righteousness to wickedness, God withdraws the previously promised blessings. It is precisely because God is immutable that His relationship to men, and/or His treatment of them, varies with the changes in their conduct. When the Scriptures thus speak of “God having repented,” the wording is accommodative (viz., written from a human vantage point). As Samuel Davidson has well said: “When repentance is attributed to God, it implies a change in His mode of dealing with men, such as would indicate on their part a change of purpose” (1843, p. 527). From a human vantage point, we view God’s act(s) as “repentance.” But, in reality, God’s immutable law has not changed one iota; only the response of man to that law has changed. Seen in this light, God cannot be accused of any self-contradictory attributes."
My first question would be: How does Samuel Davidson know that this is what is meant by repentance? By the way that it is used, how can God "repent of evil" that he must do to someone when it is meant that he simply changes his position on how to treat them? "Repent of evil" as used in Jeremaih 18:8 would suggest a regret or some sort of atonement. Also, How can God do "evil"? Is this even possible? Wouldn't this mean that God is not totally good?
Second question: Does god ever regret what he has done?
God created man w/o sin. Man, through free will chose to sin and sin entered the world.
Wouldn't the willingness to commit sin be considered a sin? Why weren't Adam and Eve UNWILLING to commit sin? Why didn't they choose NOT to commit sin? Why didn't God make them unwilling to eat of the fruit tree? This would still mean they have total free will, but simply would not be willing to contradict their God.
I don't see how you mean to not affect free will as it is by changing man a little? It would affect it, right?
No. Going by the bible, Humans are the way that they are because they were made that way by God. Adam and eve were willing to do some things and unwilling to do others because they were made that way by God, Right? Why were they "willing" to sin? Why didn't they just "choose" not to sin? If God changed some thing in their brains that made then CHOOSE NOT to sin, then they have the choice anyway but they CHOOSE not to sin and thus still have freewill.
ALSO, If Humans were made in Gods image, and humans had the capacity to sin and were willing to commit sin, then does this mean that God too has the capacity and willingness to commit sin? Wouldn't this contradict God being totally good and sinless?
And humans still choose to have babies knowing (or assuming) that they will disappoint in the future.
Humans rarely "choose" to have babies anyway. It's often an accident. I was an accident. My parents did not say "hey, lets go have sex and make a baby". They did it for other reasons. The same is true for perhaps 95% of people on this planet. They were accidents.
If two people KNEW that their children would disappoint them, would they have them if given the choice and being in total control of their behaviors? I doubt it. Maybe they would still want to have children because they are victims of their genetic urges to parent children, but does God have genetic urges that made him want to create humans? If so, how can be be all powerful if he is victim to his various inherent urges?
Maybe, maybe not. Some say they were great warriors. If Nephilium is a word for great warriors or whatever, they are just people.
But the point is that they LIVED the flood. The Bible suggests that they were not humans, but either way, this would contradict the verse that says that every living thing that creeps or craws died in the flood.
-
Religion doesn’t cause war. It is merely a vehicle through which wars can be started.
How is a "vehicle through which wars can be started" not a "cause"? ???
They seem synonymous to me.
-
I think an analogy that might be used is that guns don't kill people, people kill people?
A gun doesn't stalk around a neighborhood on it's own later shooting someone in the head. A person holding the gun and firing the gun shoots the person and kills them.
Religion itself doesn't cause a war, but people that believe in it, or misinterpret it do...maybe giving their reasons for starting the war as pertaining to something in their religion.
I think that it is true that some people start wars BECAUSE they hold specific religious beliefs.
People flew planes into the twin towers and people blow innocent people up in the middle east BECAUSE of religious beliefs.
Atheists don't car bomb.
-
You can accept or reject, but that's usually explained by sin having not yet infiltrating the earth as much as it has now. God made Adam and Eve perfect (and w/free will) and then when they sinned sin entered the earth. Over time sickness and diseases and death permeated more and more in a progressive type manner.
If the bible is a bunch of hooey, it would have been quite easy to leave out statements of a dude living to 969.
But why haven't we found fossils of people who were that old? Scientists can often tell the age that people died from their bones. No humans have been found to be hundreds of years old when they died.
The bible is specific, sure. So is Homers Iliad and Odyssey (with interactions with Gods and mythological beings). So is the Koran. So are many various other non-historical poetic or fictional works.
I would love to know that stuff also! There's only one reference of Jesus in his teens in the bible as far as I know....maybe He was like 12.
Look into the apocrypha. Tons of non-bible books written about Jesus around the same time as the other Gospels were written.
Pretty sure he wrote the first 5 books of the O.T.
There is no proof of this though.
-
World Wars I and II had little to do with one’s religious belief. Did the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor, because we were Christians? Did we return the favor, with the bomb on Hiroshima, because they weren’t?
Acquisition of wealth and/or power, greed, or settling personal vendettas is the culprit for war. Whether one uses the vehicle of religion to attain those goals is another matter.
Not all wars are caused by religion, Obviously.
Though some wars are. Some wars (and violent acts) make absolutely no sense without religion.
-
Who exactly is going to chronicle the life of a teenage carpenter in Nazareth, and what would be the motivation for doing such? Jesus didn't even start His ministry, until He was about 30.
For such an influential person, it would seem reasonable to go around where he grew up and ask people who might have knew him or might have known people who knew him and profiled his early years growing up. These would be probably the most important years as they profile his religious influences, etc.
Their movitation for lying would be..............
Fame. Notoriety. Historical importance.
Though I doubt most authors of religious texts are "lying". I think they truly believe what they wrote down.
I thought the parts that got chucked were those that were shown to be at odds with the historical teachings of Jesus Christ. If there's some reason why those should have stayed, I'd like to know.
No, They got chucked for political reasons. The bible we see now is essentially randomly compiled and has little relation of important aspects that the other texts do not have. Most of the Gospels go contrary to what Jesus actually said himself. Jesus never actually claimed that he was "God", but the authors of the Gospels claim that he was over and over.
If you truly base your beliefs on "faith", then why have "faith" that a group of men living a thousand years ago actually compiled the exact and only books which were influenced by God and got rid of those that were not?