• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

god

kal-el said:
Huh? Did you read the same quote I did? He works out everything, even the wicked for a day of disaster. So, this "god" fellow is sadistic since he created sinners to punish them, and if he did that, it's for his amusement.

No, it wasn't about that but let's look at the other quotes you listed first.





Again, imagine that, A Christian who is ignorant on their very own theology.:lol:

Hmmm...this coming from somebody who preaches from a version of the Bible that is pragmatic in its very nature.

The quotes you posted:

1.) "I form the light and create darkness; I bring prosperity and create disaster, I, the lord, do all these things."-Isaiah 45:7

A more accurate translation of that quote would be:

"I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe; I, the Lord, do all these things."

Isaiah is one of the prophetic books and is apocalyptic in nature. Like Lamentations, there are hints of sadness from the Jewish people and explanations of why people suffer. According to Hebrew and Christian scholars, a commonly agreed interpretation of this passage would be that God permits evil for the greater good, meaning that God allows us to have hardships so that we can grow and become stronger.

2.) Then the lord said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the lord."

A more accurate translation would be:

"The Lord said to him, "Who gives one man speech and makes another deaf and dumb? Or who gives sight to one and makes another blind? Is it not I, the Lord?"

In the context of the chapter, God was trying to give Moses courage. The idea that God is trying to say that he is actually responsible for physical deforments is highly subjective because this passage wasn't meant to be taken in that context.
 
i believe in tranquility said:
Im not denying its existance, yet this doesnt mean I agree with it.

But you said you follow Jesus, correct? And by following his teachings, you cannot cherry-pick his teachings to believe in the ones that suit you. He cleary is ok to own slaves, and he condones they're beating as well. So, watch what you say when you say you follow Jesus's teachings.
 
George_Washington said:
No, it wasn't about that but let's look at the other quotes you listed first.

Why not? Ok, I"ll play along with your little chirade, who's to say he created anything then? If he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, he had to create sin, as there's nothing that god does not create. Understand?




Hmmm...this coming from somebody who preaches from a version of the Bible that is pragmatic in its very nature.

Are you saying the NIV is false? If it is, again it proves this god is a ninkumpoop. If he's omniscient, he would know it's false, and being omnipotent, would make sure it's not printed then. So think before you type next time please.


1.) "I form the light and create darkness; I bring prosperity and create disaster, I, the lord, do all these things."-Isaiah 45:7

A more accurate translation of that quote would be:

"I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe; I, the Lord, do all these things."

Uhh, yea. That says the same thing. I, the lord, do all these things. You can say he only forms the light, creates darkness, and makes well-being, and woe, but that is where there's a problem. If that's all he created, there must be anpother god who created everything else, hence your bible god cannot be omnipotent, if that's all he created.

Isaiah is one of the prophetic books and is apocalyptic in nature.

Huh? You're half right. It's a collection of varying sermons and prophesies. It's basically divided into 2 parts. The first part is about judgement. The second part is mostly about Jesus's appearance in the NT.

Like Lamentations, there are hints of sadness from the Jewish people and explanations of why people suffer. According to Hebrew and Christian scholars, a commonly agreed interpretation of this passage would be that God permits evil for the greater good, meaning that God allows us to have hardships so that we can grow and become stronger.

Again, something that's infallible cannot be interpreted, or taken out of context by fallible humans, it's inpossible. By you saying I interpreted the verse wrong, you're saying the bible isn't infallible. I'd watch what I say about god's book, if I were you, cause you KNOW what absurditites, atrocities, and violence this diety contains in his arsenal.:lol:

2.) Then the lord said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the lord."

A more accurate translation would be:

"The Lord said to him, "Who gives one man speech and makes another deaf and dumb? Or who gives sight to one and makes another blind? Is it not I, the Lord?"

In the context of the chapter, God was trying to give Moses courage. The idea that God is trying to say that he is actually responsible for physical deforments is highly subjective because this passage wasn't meant to be taken in that context.

O, I see, I took it out of context again. Please just admit the bible is not perfect, then we'll be done with it. BTW, how do you explain Exodus 2:11-12?
 
i believe in tranquility said:
lol..again...Jesus did not own slaves. So I wont either.

Haha, ok. It's all good as long as you recognize that Jesus condoned slaves and slave beating.
 
kal-el said:
You should be the one to talk about logic. Logic tells me he's just a figment in people's imaginations. Man created the notion of god.

Logic tells you this, huh? Than tell me, what are the three laws of logic, and how do you apply them to this train of thought?


Huh? Did you read the same quote I did? He works out everything, even the wicked for a day of disaster. So, this "god" fellow is sadistic since he created sinners to punish them, and if he did that, it's for his amusement.

God did not "create" sinners to punish them. He created a perfect world which we chose to destroy.


Again, imagine that, A Christian who is ignorant on their very own theology.:lol:

Indeed.





And this fellow has the gaul to deny handicapped people from approaching him, when he made them that way. What a douchebag.:lol:

First off, when did he deny them? Secondly, you seem to imply that handicap people are useless, God has a will for them too.
 
kal-el said:
Haha, ok. It's all good as long as you recognize that Jesus condoned slaves and slave beating.

He condoned slaves being obedient to there masters, just as he condones submission too the governing authorities. He did not condone owning slaves.
 
oracle25 said:
Logic tells you this,huh? Than tell me, what are the three laws of logic, and how do you apply them to this train of thought?

Haha, back for another beating I see.:lol: Well good old George's question sounded alot like an appeal to belief to me. http://www.ramdac.org/fallacies.php?fallacy=Appeal to Belief




God did not "create" sinners

Uhh, did you actually read the bible?

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth.



He created a perfect world which we chose to destroy.

I must have missed this part in the bible.:lol:




First off, when did he deny them?

Leveticus 21:16-22
The lord said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, For the generations to come none of your desendants who has a defect may come near to offer food to his god. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed, no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunch-backed or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festered or running sores or damaged testicles. No decendant of Aaron the preist who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the lord by fire. He has a defect, he must not come near to offer his food to god.

y, you seem to imply that handicap people are useless, God has a will for them too.

It is not me that implies that, try your sky thug. He seems quite intolerable of them. That's asinine considering he made them that way.:lol:

He condoned slaves being obedient to there masters,

Sure did.


He did not condone owning slaves.

Well, seeing is your so sure of this arrant assertion, I'm sure you won't mind pointing out in the bible where Jesus did not condone slavery.
 
Last edited:
kal-el said:
Are you saying the NIV is false?

In a lot of ways, it's a poor translation. Some people it's better than the King James version which might be true. But there are certainly versus that people have said to be far from what was originally intended in their meanings in the original Hebrew and Greek languages.

I think the New American Bible is the best translation currently available and is definitely one of the most fresh. It was a project that was started by the Catholic Church in the early 1940's and really wasn't completed until the early 90's. Catholic and Jewish scholars worked closely together to provide the most accurate translations and also to provide very indepth footnotes and worthy scholarship sidenotes. Each page has detailed analysis that is the work of many academic scholars over many years. It is by far a translation that is the most highly regarded among academics and archeologists. You should look into it. I am not aware of any Bible that has as extensive footnotes as the NAB has. The amount of extra material the NIV provides is lame in comparison.


O, I see, I took it out of context again. Please just admit the bible is not perfect, then we'll be done with it. BTW, how do you explain Exodus 2:11-12?[/QUOTE]

Well, maybe Moses was entirely justified in what he did but think about dude. If your family was in chains by people and one of those people was beating the crap out of your mother, wouldn't you try to defend her?
 
George_Washington said:
In a lot of ways, it's a poor translation.

Again, if this god fella is omniscient, he would know if his word was gonna be translated falsely, and being omnipotent, would be able to halt it from being printed. But because he did not, that proves he is either a blundering idiot, or impotent, or flat out doesn't exist.:lol:

Some people it's better than the King James version which might be true. But there are certainly versus that people have said to be far from what was originally intended in their meanings in the original Hebrew and Greek languages.

The King James bible is certainly the most famous, but that doesn't make it the most accurate or true. The KJV is a study translation of the bible; it's a word for word translation from Greek and Hebrew. But different languages do not have identical wording sometimes, so alternate words (that basically mean the same) were used. The NIV is usually called a reading translation, as the author takes a whole sentence as translates it to mean the same. No less valid.

I think the New American Bible is the best translation currently available and is definitely one of the most fresh.

The NASB is simply a beefed-up version of the KJV. Nothing more, nothing less.

It was a project that was started by the Catholic Church in the early 1940's and really wasn't completed until the early 90's. Catholic and Jewish scholars worked closely together to provide the most accurate translations and also to provide very indepth footnotes and worthy scholarship sidenotes. Each page has detailed analysis that is the work of many academic scholars over many years. It is by far a translation that is the most highly regarded among academics and archeologists. You should look into it. I am not aware of any Bible that has as extensive footnotes as the NAB has. The amount of extra material the NIV provides is lame in comparison.

Maybe I will look in to it, thanks for the heads up, I appreciate that.


O, I see, I took it out of context again. Please just admit the bible is not perfect, then we'll be done with it. BTW, how do you explain Exodus 2:11-12?

Well, maybe Moses was entirely justified in what he did but think about dude. If your family was in chains by people and one of those people was beating the crap out of your mother, wouldn't you try to defend her?

You're right, but this god fellow didn't condemn that. That doesn't seem to fit into the loving god stereotype.
 
kal-el said:
Haha, back for another beating I see.:lol:

:lol: you dilution amuses me :rofl

Well good old George's question sounded alot like an appeal to belief to me.

Haha, that's funny. Please answer the original question or admit defeat.


Uhh, did you actually read the bible?

Much more than you apparently.



I must have missed this part in the bible.

Almost everything.

It is not me that implies that, try your sky thug.

Umm, no, nope, that's definitely you.

He seems quite intolerable of them. That's asinine considering he made them that way.:lol:

deffects are a result of sin, not God. God created perfection, we chose to destroy it. You miss the whole point of leviticus 21:16-22; the levites were God's appointed priests, so those who have a genetic defect of sin could not be one of them.
 
oracle25 said:
:lol: you dilution amuses me :rofl

And your opaque apparitions amuse me.:lol:


Haha, that's funny.

It seems you are the only one laughing.


Please answer the original question or admit defeat.

I'll admit no such thing. I see, you think you got me here; cause the laws of logic do not deny the existance of god. I'm not by any means saying it's impossible for their to be a god, just impossible for their to be a bible god. I need no proof whatsoever for non-belief, and if you say evidence is required for non-belief, then I'd say pink unicorns, Santa, and the Loch Ness can exist until someone can muster up evidence that proves they don't.



Much more than you apparently.

Uhh, you have not even provided a modicum of supporting scripture for your assertions. You probably didn't even read the bible.


Almost everything.

Back to the point, back up your fantastic claim of god created a perfect world for us to destoy, by providing supporting scripture? Or please admit that you are making it up as you go along, thanks.


Umm, no, nope, that's definitely you.

Listen up nimrod, it's not for me to decide if handicapped people are useless, it seems your sky leprechaun implies that in the bible when he announces that handicapped people can't approach god. Obviously handicapped are a symbol of god's failure, and as a result, are unbearable to be in his presence. He needs not look far to place blame, as it is his ****ing fault that they are handicapped:

Exodus 4:11
The lord said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the lord?"


deffects are a result of sin, not God.

And that verse proves otherwise, that is unless you can back up your humanistic, sappy opinion.

God created perfection, we chose to destroy it.

This is getting quite tiring. That is your problem- applying opinions to a book that needs no opinion. Either back this articulation up with scripture, or else concede, thanks.

You miss the whole point of leviticus 21:16-22; the levites were God's appointed priests, so those who have a genetic defect of sin could not be one of them.

Actually, the book of Leveticus is mainly a how-to manual for Israel's priests. And sanitary conditions at that time were bad, hence the priests were responsible for teaching what was "clean" and "unclean". And the lord commanded Moses to tell Aaron that people with defects are not to be giving his food to god, or come near the altar. Wow, you Christians really have the abitlity to think yourselves through a corkscrew, huh? What an apprenticed interpretation.:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom