‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 > 
 
   
 

What’s in it for God?

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
07 January 2019 13:17
 
EN - 07 January 2019 11:41 AM
hannahtoo - 06 January 2019 04:36 PM
EN - 06 January 2019 02:07 PM

This shows the impossible problems that Christians face when they embrace the OT.  My theology is better.

Paul had a powerful vision, and the disciples were so taken by spending time with Jesus.  They just tried to explain events in some way that jived with the theology/reality they knew.  And that was the OT.  Paul was disappointed/angry/frustrated that all the Jews didn’t understand it his new way.  Some did, yes.  But generally, most Jews felt that Paul’s ideas about Jesus being the Jewish Messiah didn’t make sense.  Paul spent a lot of time trying and trying to explain.  Letters and letters of impassioned explanations.  However, he was basically trying to tell people with a religious heritage of several thousand years that they needed a major paradigm shift.  Nah-uh.

Yes, the vast majority of Jews did not accept Jesus being the Messiah. From a purely socio-political perspective, that assured their minority status and has, in large part, led to many of their problems over the past 2000 years in the Christian-dominant West and Muslim-dominant ME.  I understand the power of ancient traditions, but I’m not so sure that clinging to the Torah has been all that beneficial for them.

Especially bad because Paul and other NT authors cast the Jews in a dim light as Christ killers. 

Hanging onto traditions, in the face of persecution is not unusual.  Maybe comparable to American Indian groups trying to save their customs and language?  Noble or foolhardy?

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
07 January 2019 13:33
 

TwoSeven1:
I understand what you’re saying.  What you are missing is that the Jews add to the Old Testament.  The Talmud is a major part of their system of belief, so, saying that the Old Testament and New Testament are different theology because of what Jews believe doesn’t make sense.  In other words, Judaism and Christianity both have foundation in the Old Testament, but they disagree on the New Testament.  Christianity has foundation in the New Testament, but Judaism denies that Jesus is the Messiah, so they have reason not to accept the New Testament.  Orthodox Jews seems to believe that the Messiah they are still waiting for will play a role more akin to a world leader/politician.  Jesus’ message was much different than what the Jews were expecting and, I agree, the sacrifice that Jesus made doesn’t fit into Orthodox Judaic belief, which is why Jesus wrestled with the Jews so consistently.

Another theological difference between Jews and Christians is that Jews have not felt limited to the Bible for revelation.  Tradition holds that their people were given oral as well as written Laws by God.  The oral Laws were eventually written in the Talmud. 

BTW, with all this discussion of Jewish theology, I should say that there are different interpretations of the religion, etc., depending on the sect of Judaism.  Just as Catholics, Calvinists, Baptists, etc. interpret Christianity differently.  The Judaism I was taught as a child was very liberal and skeptical, rather than Orthodox or Conservative.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21692
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
07 January 2019 14:04
 
hannahtoo - 07 January 2019 01:17 PM
EN - 07 January 2019 11:41 AM
hannahtoo - 06 January 2019 04:36 PM
EN - 06 January 2019 02:07 PM

This shows the impossible problems that Christians face when they embrace the OT.  My theology is better.

Paul had a powerful vision, and the disciples were so taken by spending time with Jesus.  They just tried to explain events in some way that jived with the theology/reality they knew.  And that was the OT.  Paul was disappointed/angry/frustrated that all the Jews didn’t understand it his new way.  Some did, yes.  But generally, most Jews felt that Paul’s ideas about Jesus being the Jewish Messiah didn’t make sense.  Paul spent a lot of time trying and trying to explain.  Letters and letters of impassioned explanations.  However, he was basically trying to tell people with a religious heritage of several thousand years that they needed a major paradigm shift.  Nah-uh.

Yes, the vast majority of Jews did not accept Jesus being the Messiah. From a purely socio-political perspective, that assured their minority status and has, in large part, led to many of their problems over the past 2000 years in the Christian-dominant West and Muslim-dominant ME.  I understand the power of ancient traditions, but I’m not so sure that clinging to the Torah has been all that beneficial for them.

Especially bad because Paul and other NT authors cast the Jews in a dim light as Christ killers. 

Hanging onto traditions, in the face of persecution is not unusual.  Maybe comparable to American Indian groups trying to save their customs and language?  Noble or foolhardy?

Isn’t the whole premise of this forum that it is foolhardy?  Isn’t it the consensus here that those traditions are baseless and not founded in objective fact?

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
07 January 2019 15:26
 
EN - 07 January 2019 02:04 PM
hannahtoo - 07 January 2019 01:17 PM
EN - 07 January 2019 11:41 AM
hannahtoo - 06 January 2019 04:36 PM
EN - 06 January 2019 02:07 PM

This shows the impossible problems that Christians face when they embrace the OT.  My theology is better.

Paul had a powerful vision, and the disciples were so taken by spending time with Jesus.  They just tried to explain events in some way that jived with the theology/reality they knew.  And that was the OT.  Paul was disappointed/angry/frustrated that all the Jews didn’t understand it his new way.  Some did, yes.  But generally, most Jews felt that Paul’s ideas about Jesus being the Jewish Messiah didn’t make sense.  Paul spent a lot of time trying and trying to explain.  Letters and letters of impassioned explanations.  However, he was basically trying to tell people with a religious heritage of several thousand years that they needed a major paradigm shift.  Nah-uh.

Yes, the vast majority of Jews did not accept Jesus being the Messiah. From a purely socio-political perspective, that assured their minority status and has, in large part, led to many of their problems over the past 2000 years in the Christian-dominant West and Muslim-dominant ME.  I understand the power of ancient traditions, but I’m not so sure that clinging to the Torah has been all that beneficial for them.

Especially bad because Paul and other NT authors cast the Jews in a dim light as Christ killers. 

Hanging onto traditions, in the face of persecution is not unusual.  Maybe comparable to American Indian groups trying to save their customs and language?  Noble or foolhardy?

Isn’t the whole premise of this forum that it is foolhardy?  Isn’t it the consensus here that those traditions are baseless and not founded in objective fact?

Good point; good question.  There are parts of religious traditions that are foolhardy.  Others that are practical, or artistic, or profound.  If a person comes here to argue for their faith, they will be challenged.  Freedom of speech will be exercised.  But when the actions turn to genocide, that is obviously too far.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21692
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
07 January 2019 17:22
 

We’ll see what happens when unbelievers have the upper hand.  Typically, every majority oppressses minorities, in some form or fashion.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
07 January 2019 17:26
 
EN - 07 January 2019 05:22 PM

We’ll see what happens when unbelievers have the upper hand.  Typically, every majority oppressses minorities, in some form or fashion.

Look at the Scandanavian countries for hints…

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21692
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
07 January 2019 17:35
 
Jefe - 07 January 2019 05:26 PM
EN - 07 January 2019 05:22 PM

We’ll see what happens when unbelievers have the upper hand.  Typically, every majority oppressses minorities, in some form or fashion.

Look at the Scandanavian countries for hints…

You mean like discrimination against the Sami minority?

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
07 January 2019 19:13
 

Prejudice is and unfortunate human trait, not a distinctly religious trait.  Religion grows out of society.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1880
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
07 January 2019 19:42
 
TwoSeven1 - 07 January 2019 10:18 AM

“What do you mean by ‘the sin of humanity’?”  The context I’m using is the Bible.  The Bible explains what sin is, and that all people have sinned.

And you don’t see that you are being manipulated into believing that you are sick and that (conveniently) your particular religion has the cure?

If it can be shown that there are contradictions and/or errors in the Bible, would that change your mind?

“What do you mean when you say the people were ‘evil’?”  The word evil is used in Genesis and that’s what I’m referring to.

I know what you’re referring to. Please be specific. What were people doing that made them “evil”?

“I agree that animals are not of the same importance as human beings, but what does killing them for something that’s not their fault accomplish?”  God decided to flood the Earth to wipe out the evil group of people populating it.  Animals aren’t the same importance as human beings.  God commanded Noah to build the Ark which included space to save animals by their kind.  There isn’t much more for me to say to your point except that this is an appeal to emotion: “Do you think that puppies and kittens suffer when they drown?”

No, I’m appealing to logic. Would an all loving God drown people and animals? How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature on the planet?

“And besides, do you seriously believe this fairy tale story?”  There are reasonable explanations on how the Flood/Ark account was possible.

No, there isn’t. It’s a fairy tale. And I think that you’re smart enough to realize that at some level.

“Simple question. I’m just asking if you would take the same actions if you were a God.”  I’m pointing out that it’s simply not relevant.

And here we see the cognitive dissonance revealing itself. You’re not answering because you’re probably a decent person and you now realize that you are more moral than the God you worship.

“So if you agree that suffering is a part of the human condition, then the question becomes, where is the all-loving and all-powerful God?”  God is in heaven and his kingdom is in the hearts of people.  Jesus will return, though.

You missed the point completely. It’s illogical for an all-loving and all-powerful God to allow gratuitous suffering. Saying he is “in Heaven and his kingdom is in the hearts of people” is just meaningless platitudinal BS.   

“Adam and Eve are irrelevant. Could an all-loving and all-powerful God have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?”  Adam and Eve are relevant.  How does what could happen have relevance to what did happen?  “Could” is inherently hypothetical.  What did happen is that Adam and Eve sinned, which brought death.  All people following them were born into sin, which I undertand means that sin is inherent in our nature.

It has plenty of relevance. Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering? Please try to think for yourself rather than always deferring to your preferred book. 

“Shouldn’t God judge you on your own merits?”  Does he not?

Apparently he doesn’t Not if we are all “born with sin”. How could you be guilty of something before you have the time to exercise your free will?

“I don’t know what all that has to do with anything. I was talking about disease, famine, poverty, natural disasters. Things that are for all practical purposes beyond human control.”  I wasn’t.  You said that history speaks for itself and I asked how it does if mistakes like these are repeated.

You don’t understand that famine, poverty, disease, and natural disasters are not “mistakes that are repeated”?? Seriously?

“That’s not an answer to the question.”  You’re right, it’s not.

What does the Bible say to these questions?:
“Where exactly is the devil now?”
“What must one do (or not do) in order to end up in Hell? And what happens to those people when they’re in Hell?”


I have no idea what the Bible says - I’m asking YOU. Besides, you are keen to point out that one can’t just take things at face value from the Bible - they need the proper “interpretation.” So go ahead and give us the proper “interpretation”.

If it can be shown that there are contradictions and/or errors in the Bible, would that change your mind?

Ron

[ Edited: 08 January 2019 03:03 by MrRon]
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1880
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
07 January 2019 19:44
 
TwoSeven1 - 07 January 2019 10:21 AM
MrRon - 04 January 2019 06:50 PM
TwoSeven1 - 04 January 2019 11:05 AM
MrRon - 04 January 2019 03:55 AM
TwoSeven1 - 03 January 2019 07:57 PM
MrRon - 03 January 2019 05:38 PM
TwoSeven1 - 03 January 2019 04:21 PM

  God hasn’t changed and the portrayal of God isn’t different between the two portions of the Bible.

So is God still endorsing slavery?

Ron

In what context did God endorse slavery?

Read Exodus (without squinting). Do you deny that God endorsed slavery?

Ron

I’ll respond to this later today.

Edit: Added my response.

I don’t see God endorsing slavery in Exodus.

“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” - Exodus 21:16

The laws on slavery in Exodus don’t imply that God endorses slavery.  They exists to protect slaves.  Slavery in the context of Exodus can also be defined as indentured servitude.

Oh, but there’s so much more about slavery in Exodus.  Do you want to post those or should I?

And slavery can be defined as indentured servitude if that’s what you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life. Is that what you call indentured servitude?

If you want to post them then go for it.  It would help us have something to discuss.

Again, do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life “indentured servitude”?

And, if it can be shown that there are contradictions and/or errors in the Bible, would that change your mind?

Ron

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
08 January 2019 08:55
 
MrRon - 07 January 2019 07:42 PM
TwoSeven1 - 07 January 2019 10:18 AM

“What do you mean by ‘the sin of humanity’?”  The context I’m using is the Bible.  The Bible explains what sin is, and that all people have sinned.

And you don’t see that you are being manipulated into believing that you are sick and that (conveniently) your particular religion has the cure?

If it can be shown that there are contradictions and/or errors in the Bible, would that change your mind?

“What do you mean when you say the people were ‘evil’?”  The word evil is used in Genesis and that’s what I’m referring to.

I know what you’re referring to. Please be specific. What were people doing that made them “evil”?

“I agree that animals are not of the same importance as human beings, but what does killing them for something that’s not their fault accomplish?”  God decided to flood the Earth to wipe out the evil group of people populating it.  Animals aren’t the same importance as human beings.  God commanded Noah to build the Ark which included space to save animals by their kind.  There isn’t much more for me to say to your point except that this is an appeal to emotion: “Do you think that puppies and kittens suffer when they drown?”

No, I’m appealing to logic. Would an all loving God drown people and animals? How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature on the planet?

“And besides, do you seriously believe this fairy tale story?”  There are reasonable explanations on how the Flood/Ark account was possible.

No, there isn’t. It’s a fairy tale. And I think that you’re smart enough to realize that at some level.

“Simple question. I’m just asking if you would take the same actions if you were a God.”  I’m pointing out that it’s simply not relevant.

And here we see the cognitive dissonance revealing itself. You’re not answering because you’re probably a decent person and you now realize that you are more moral than the God you worship.

“So if you agree that suffering is a part of the human condition, then the question becomes, where is the all-loving and all-powerful God?”  God is in heaven and his kingdom is in the hearts of people.  Jesus will return, though.

You missed the point completely. It’s illogical for an all-loving and all-powerful God to allow gratuitous suffering. Saying he is “in Heaven and his kingdom is in the hearts of people” is just meaningless platitudinal BS.   

“Adam and Eve are irrelevant. Could an all-loving and all-powerful God have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?”  Adam and Eve are relevant.  How does what could happen have relevance to what did happen?  “Could” is inherently hypothetical.  What did happen is that Adam and Eve sinned, which brought death.  All people following them were born into sin, which I undertand means that sin is inherent in our nature.

It has plenty of relevance. Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering? Please try to think for yourself rather than always deferring to your preferred book. 

“Shouldn’t God judge you on your own merits?”  Does he not?

Apparently he doesn’t Not if we are all “born with sin”. How could you be guilty of something before you have the time to exercise your free will?

“I don’t know what all that has to do with anything. I was talking about disease, famine, poverty, natural disasters. Things that are for all practical purposes beyond human control.”  I wasn’t.  You said that history speaks for itself and I asked how it does if mistakes like these are repeated.

You don’t understand that famine, poverty, disease, and natural disasters are not “mistakes that are repeated”?? Seriously?

“That’s not an answer to the question.”  You’re right, it’s not.

What does the Bible say to these questions?:
“Where exactly is the devil now?”
“What must one do (or not do) in order to end up in Hell? And what happens to those people when they’re in Hell?”


I have no idea what the Bible says - I’m asking YOU. Besides, you are keen to point out that one can’t just take things at face value from the Bible - they need the proper “interpretation.” So go ahead and give us the proper “interpretation”.

If it can be shown that there are contradictions and/or errors in the Bible, would that change your mind?

Ron

“And you don’t see that you are being manipulated into believing that you are sick and that (conveniently) your particular religion has the cure?”  No, I don’t see manipulation.

“I know what you’re referring to. Please be specific. What were people doing that made them ‘evil’?”  What does the Bible say?

“No, I’m appealing to logic.”  Really?

“No, there isn’t. It’s a fairy tale. And I think that you’re smart enough to realize that at some level.”  Well, I don’t believe it’s a fairy tale.  What is there for us to discuss in light of our disagreement?

“And here we see the cognitive dissonance revealing itself. You’re not answering because you’re probably a decent person and you now realize that you are more moral than the God you worship.”  You’re assuming why I’m not answering, and yet I answered already.  Many times.

“You missed the point completely.”  No, I haven’t.  You are making the argument that because the Bible says God is, in your own words, all-loving and all-powerful, that somehow contradicts the fact that there is suffering in the world.  I hear you loud and clear.  You don’t seem to understand what I’ve been explaining.

“Please try to think for yourself rather than always deferring to your preferred book.”  The Bible is my point of reference for this discussion.  I have been trying to explain that the Bible is reasonable.  Is what the Bible says about God not the whole point of what we’re discussing?  You keep making this discussion about me and my opinions and I keep trying to bring back the context.  How does asking your hypothetical question have relevance with the context?  You would do better to ask how God can allow suffering instead of asking me to say what I would do if I were him.

“How could you be guilty of something before you have the time to exercise your free will?”  Understand this as meaning that sin is inherent in our nature.  God knows that all human beings need salvation because sin is opposite to his nature.

“You don’t understand that famine, poverty, disease, and natural disasters are not ‘mistakes that are repeated’?? Seriously?”  I never said that they were.  I mentioned the things that I did because you said that history speaks for itself.  I was simply challenging your claim that history speaks for itself.  I didn’t equate poverty, disease and natural disasters as mistakes.  We were talking about two different things.  The problem I have with your claim about history is that it really doesn’t do what you say it does.

“I have no idea what the Bible says - I’m asking YOU.”  Then why do you keep assuming to know what I believe?  The whole basis of this discussion is God as described in the Bible.  You should brush up on what the Bible says before entering into a debate about what it says.

“Besides, you are keen to point out that one can’t just take things at face value from the Bible - they need the proper ‘interpretation.’”  No, that’s not what I pointed out.  I pointed out that we have to know context to understand the Bible, which has nothing to do with interpretation.  What you have done is take verses out of context and applied your meaning, which constitutes interpretation.

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
08 January 2019 08:55
 
hannahtoo - 07 January 2019 01:33 PM

TwoSeven1:
I understand what you’re saying.  What you are missing is that the Jews add to the Old Testament.  The Talmud is a major part of their system of belief, so, saying that the Old Testament and New Testament are different theology because of what Jews believe doesn’t make sense.  In other words, Judaism and Christianity both have foundation in the Old Testament, but they disagree on the New Testament.  Christianity has foundation in the New Testament, but Judaism denies that Jesus is the Messiah, so they have reason not to accept the New Testament.  Orthodox Jews seems to believe that the Messiah they are still waiting for will play a role more akin to a world leader/politician.  Jesus’ message was much different than what the Jews were expecting and, I agree, the sacrifice that Jesus made doesn’t fit into Orthodox Judaic belief, which is why Jesus wrestled with the Jews so consistently.

Another theological difference between Jews and Christians is that Jews have not felt limited to the Bible for revelation.  Tradition holds that their people were given oral as well as written Laws by God.  The oral Laws were eventually written in the Talmud. 

BTW, with all this discussion of Jewish theology, I should say that there are different interpretations of the religion, etc., depending on the sect of Judaism.  Just as Catholics, Calvinists, Baptists, etc. interpret Christianity differently.  The Judaism I was taught as a child was very liberal and skeptical, rather than Orthodox or Conservative.

Good points!

Something interesting to me is what Jesus says in John 4:22.  He says that salvation is from the Jews.  I think it’s interesting in light of how much wrestling he did with them on their beliefs and traditions.  However, it does makes sense why Israel is named so.  Israel means “wrestle with God.”

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
08 January 2019 09:03
 
MrRon - 07 January 2019 07:44 PM
TwoSeven1 - 07 January 2019 10:21 AM
MrRon - 04 January 2019 06:50 PM
TwoSeven1 - 04 January 2019 11:05 AM
MrRon - 04 January 2019 03:55 AM
TwoSeven1 - 03 January 2019 07:57 PM
MrRon - 03 January 2019 05:38 PM
TwoSeven1 - 03 January 2019 04:21 PM

  God hasn’t changed and the portrayal of God isn’t different between the two portions of the Bible.

So is God still endorsing slavery?

Ron

In what context did God endorse slavery?

Read Exodus (without squinting). Do you deny that God endorsed slavery?

Ron

I’ll respond to this later today.

Edit: Added my response.

I don’t see God endorsing slavery in Exodus.

“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” - Exodus 21:16

The laws on slavery in Exodus don’t imply that God endorses slavery.  They exists to protect slaves.  Slavery in the context of Exodus can also be defined as indentured servitude.

Oh, but there’s so much more about slavery in Exodus.  Do you want to post those or should I?

And slavery can be defined as indentured servitude if that’s what you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life. Is that what you call indentured servitude?

If you want to post them then go for it.  It would help us have something to discuss.

Again, do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life “indentured servitude”?

And, if it can be shown that there are contradictions and/or errors in the Bible, would that change your mind?

Ron

If we aren’t discussing Exodus, then in what context does it matter how I define indentured servitude?  Will you be posting the parts of Exodus where you think God endorses slavery?

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1880
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
08 January 2019 17:22
 
TwoSeven1 - 08 January 2019 08:55 AM

“And you don’t see that you are being manipulated into believing that you are sick and that (conveniently) your particular religion has the cure?”  No, I don’t see manipulation.

“I know what you’re referring to. Please be specific. What were people doing that made them ‘evil’?”  What does the Bible say?

“No, I’m appealing to logic.”  Really?

“No, there isn’t. It’s a fairy tale. And I think that you’re smart enough to realize that at some level.”  Well, I don’t believe it’s a fairy tale.  What is there for us to discuss in light of our disagreement?

“And here we see the cognitive dissonance revealing itself. You’re not answering because you’re probably a decent person and you now realize that you are more moral than the God you worship.”  You’re assuming why I’m not answering, and yet I answered already.  Many times.

“You missed the point completely.”  No, I haven’t.  You are making the argument that because the Bible says God is, in your own words, all-loving and all-powerful, that somehow contradicts the fact that there is suffering in the world.  I hear you loud and clear.  You don’t seem to understand what I’ve been explaining.

“Please try to think for yourself rather than always deferring to your preferred book.”  The Bible is my point of reference for this discussion.  I have been trying to explain that the Bible is reasonable.  Is what the Bible says about God not the whole point of what we’re discussing?  You keep making this discussion about me and my opinions and I keep trying to bring back the context.  How does asking your hypothetical question have relevance with the context?  You would do better to ask how God can allow suffering instead of asking me to say what I would do if I were him.

“How could you be guilty of something before you have the time to exercise your free will?”  Understand this as meaning that sin is inherent in our nature.  God knows that all human beings need salvation because sin is opposite to his nature.

“You don’t understand that famine, poverty, disease, and natural disasters are not ‘mistakes that are repeated’?? Seriously?”  I never said that they were.  I mentioned the things that I did because you said that history speaks for itself.  I was simply challenging your claim that history speaks for itself.  I didn’t equate poverty, disease and natural disasters as mistakes.  We were talking about two different things.  The problem I have with your claim about history is that it really doesn’t do what you say it does.

“I have no idea what the Bible says - I’m asking YOU.”  Then why do you keep assuming to know what I believe?  The whole basis of this discussion is God as described in the Bible.  You should brush up on what the Bible says before entering into a debate about what it says.

“Besides, you are keen to point out that one can’t just take things at face value from the Bible - they need the proper ‘interpretation.’”  No, that’s not what I pointed out.  I pointed out that we have to know context to understand the Bible, which has nothing to do with interpretation.  What you have done is take verses out of context and applied your meaning, which constitutes interpretation.


Is there a reason why you’re not answering this question?…

If it can be shown that there are contradictions and/or errors in the Bible, would that change your mind?


I see no reason to continue if you don’t answer that question. Avoiding the question tells me that you are not interested in facts, logic, or reason. All you want to do is dodge the important questions and refer everything back to your particular book of indoctrination. I kind of don’t blame you. There is really no defense for the obvious inconsistencies and shortcomings in what should be a PERFECT book. Anyway, I doubt you would tolerate those antics from a devout Muslim. Or a devout Hindu. Or a devout… pick the religion. You are apparently incapable of stepping outside YOUR bubble and thinking for yourself. But if you ever get serious about having a discussion, then you can try tackling these unanswered questions:

  - How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature on the planet?
  - What were people doing that made them “evil”?
  - Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?
  - Do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life “indentured servitude”?


I won’t be holding my breath though. 

Ron

 

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
08 January 2019 20:36
 
MrRon - 08 January 2019 05:22 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 January 2019 08:55 AM

“And you don’t see that you are being manipulated into believing that you are sick and that (conveniently) your particular religion has the cure?”  No, I don’t see manipulation.

“I know what you’re referring to. Please be specific. What were people doing that made them ‘evil’?”  What does the Bible say?

“No, I’m appealing to logic.”  Really?

“No, there isn’t. It’s a fairy tale. And I think that you’re smart enough to realize that at some level.”  Well, I don’t believe it’s a fairy tale.  What is there for us to discuss in light of our disagreement?

“And here we see the cognitive dissonance revealing itself. You’re not answering because you’re probably a decent person and you now realize that you are more moral than the God you worship.”  You’re assuming why I’m not answering, and yet I answered already.  Many times.

“You missed the point completely.”  No, I haven’t.  You are making the argument that because the Bible says God is, in your own words, all-loving and all-powerful, that somehow contradicts the fact that there is suffering in the world.  I hear you loud and clear.  You don’t seem to understand what I’ve been explaining.

“Please try to think for yourself rather than always deferring to your preferred book.”  The Bible is my point of reference for this discussion.  I have been trying to explain that the Bible is reasonable.  Is what the Bible says about God not the whole point of what we’re discussing?  You keep making this discussion about me and my opinions and I keep trying to bring back the context.  How does asking your hypothetical question have relevance with the context?  You would do better to ask how God can allow suffering instead of asking me to say what I would do if I were him.

“How could you be guilty of something before you have the time to exercise your free will?”  Understand this as meaning that sin is inherent in our nature.  God knows that all human beings need salvation because sin is opposite to his nature.

“You don’t understand that famine, poverty, disease, and natural disasters are not ‘mistakes that are repeated’?? Seriously?”  I never said that they were.  I mentioned the things that I did because you said that history speaks for itself.  I was simply challenging your claim that history speaks for itself.  I didn’t equate poverty, disease and natural disasters as mistakes.  We were talking about two different things.  The problem I have with your claim about history is that it really doesn’t do what you say it does.

“I have no idea what the Bible says - I’m asking YOU.”  Then why do you keep assuming to know what I believe?  The whole basis of this discussion is God as described in the Bible.  You should brush up on what the Bible says before entering into a debate about what it says.

“Besides, you are keen to point out that one can’t just take things at face value from the Bible - they need the proper ‘interpretation.’”  No, that’s not what I pointed out.  I pointed out that we have to know context to understand the Bible, which has nothing to do with interpretation.  What you have done is take verses out of context and applied your meaning, which constitutes interpretation.


Is there a reason why you’re not answering this question?…

If it can be shown that there are contradictions and/or errors in the Bible, would that change your mind?


I see no reason to continue if you don’t answer that question. Avoiding the question tells me that you are not interested in facts, logic, or reason. All you want to do is dodge the important questions and refer everything back to your particular book of indoctrination. I kind of don’t blame you. There is really no defense for the obvious inconsistencies and shortcomings in what should be a PERFECT book. Anyway, I doubt you would tolerate those antics from a devout Muslim. Or a devout Hindu. Or a devout… pick the religion. You are apparently incapable of stepping outside YOUR bubble and thinking for yourself. But if you ever get serious about having a discussion, then you can try tackling these unanswered questions:

  - How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature on the planet?
  - What were people doing that made them “evil”?
  - Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?
  - Do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life “indentured servitude”?


I won’t be holding my breath though. 

Ron

“Is there a reason why you’re not answering this question?…”  I’ve explained why multiple times.

“I see no reason to continue if you don’t answer that question.”  Then let’s not continue.

 
‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >