The problem with God

[Thinker]

I know it's rather petty pointing out grammer mistakes...

It's not just petty but also dangerous. The word is grammar.

 

[Rev.]

Why are you condemning me for attacking one of his faults? He cleary is not omniscient. Actually, he's not omni anything, as they all contradict eachother.... So if he does that, I gather he isn't omniscient then?

Where in the definition of omnicient does God have to use all His knowledge all the time? If you think about it, my use of omniscient (which you haven't biblically or reasonably disproven) ultimately gives God more knowledge and power because it's not just one future he knows but all possble futures from each persons point of view stemming from the multiple choices that person might make.

I'm manufacturing nothing. Everything I have said is in the bible.

Oh, like Adam and Eve never got a chance to defend themselves?:2razz: Adam ate an apple? :2razz: Your Paul thread is so full of errors I can't even respond to it...Paul was born in Jerusalem? :2razz: This is basic Sunday School stuff here. My kids know this stuff cold.

I suppose this is scripture based? While we're on the subject, please provide supporting scripture for this entreaty:

For all the accusations made against God about how he does nothing about evil, this shows the opposite is true.

Your the one who originally provided the verse to show God is "making a list of people who will be in hell." My statement is from my explaination of that verse.

Ah, a classic case of "pass the buck". Adam should have grown some balls and asked this "God" fellow why the hell he planted a forbidden tree right smack dab in the middle of a garden? Dude, that's like putting a loaded gun in front of a little child. What he didn't know they were gonna eat from it? There's your omniscient trait right there. Ha, I wasn't aware that God was a tailor also, as he fashions clothes for Adam and Eve. :lol: That's weird, no sewing machine, no needle and thread, anyone would consider this task insurmountable, but not God, for he has the ability to create a universe, but cannot build an ark the size of an ocean liner.

Why can't you just say, "I was wrong." You said, "Adam and Eve never got a chance to defend themselves." I quoted exactly what they said in their defense and you start attacking God's omniscience again. The one doesn't have anything to do with the other. You said they couldn't defend themselves. I proved they did. Admit you're wrong and move on.

Of course they did, it's kinda obvious that they ate from the "tree of knowledge", because they knew they were in the buff....Man, this "God" fella is a tough customer, he makes child-bearing rough on all women, the snake must crawl on its belly, and Adam must eat bread with a sweaty face and return to dust.

Again, you make a claim, I prove you wrong and you change the subject to insulting God. How mature.

It is that black and white. Obedience does not require the ability to understand the difference between good and evil. Obedience requires the ability to do as one is told. I send my dog to "obedience school" yet he is not capable of discerning good or evil.

In that case we don't have "free-will", as God infringed on it. I can see why they ate the fruit, Adam was probably famished as God knocked him unconcious, then took a rib from him, if that's not enough, he probably had a major migraine from naming every single animal.

Free will is the ability to choose for oneself. They could choose to do as they were told, or they could choose not to. No free will is being infringed upon. I make my point. You ignore it and change the subject to insulting God again. *sigh*

That's neither here nor there. Can you please provide the chapter and verse where it says that Adam died spiritually?

"For if by the trespass of one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus." Romans 5:17

C'mon, you're making this too easy for me:

1 Kings 22:23
So now the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.


And this loving chap kills his own prophets for believeing his lies.

1) The lying spirit was not God himself

2) No prophets were killed for believing the lies.

You accuse Christians of twisting the Bible to suit their own purpose...what do you call what you are doing?

If you are omniscient, you cannot make any choices or learn anything new, and that rules out omnipotence also.

Yet God is omniscient AND he makes choices. God can do any he chooses, and He won't choose to do anything that is against his nature of being perfect.

Actually theology is talk about what the bible teaches us about God and his creation.

Wrong again.

theology The philosophical discipline, esp. in Western Civilization, dealing with the question of God in relation to other philosophical questions; the theoretic part of any religious activity;a branch of Christian systematics dealing with man's creatural state; an historical analysis of the doctrines and beliefs of a religion; a formal course of study of these disciplines; divinity.
The Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

How do you know I'm misusing words? Misrepresenting scripture?

I own a dictionary and a Bible. I even know how to read them.

 

[Rev.]

Impossible. If he's omniscient he cannot show any emotions, as they are a reaction to new knowledge.

emotion An affective state of conciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like is experienced: distinguished from the cognitive and volitional states of conciousness; any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, or the like; any agitated ir intense state of mind, usually with concurrent physiological changes; an occurance of this; that which brings about any intense state of feeling.

Nope. Nothing in there about emotions being reactions to new knowledge.

He's in front of you, I thought no one can see his face and live? O wait, Moses did.

"And the Lord said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. But, " hesaid, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Then the Lord said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen." Exodus 33:19-23

Nope. No face-gazing here.

False. He cannot show any emotions. The mere fact that the Bible God shows various emotions, and is supposedly omniscient, shows that he is non-existant.

See the definition of emotion provided.

I see why you think we have free will. But it is impossible if God is the omniscient creator diety. Say I plan to go to work in 2 hours, but while I'm driving, I turn around as I forgot something. An omniscient God already knows this, so I must do this. Just like I said before, He knew thousands of years ago that I would type this sentence, and I think that I am choosing to type this, but I'm only doing what he already knows.

omniscience is not the same as predestination.

Please if you cannot present at least semi-intelligent counterclaims, please refrain from posting anything. It just wastes my time as I must respond to them.

:2funny: Good advice! You might try following it.

Uhh, the bible states that we all have a destiny, and we cannot do anything to change it, not to mention it also states he works out a day of disaster for the wicked. That sounds alot like he knows some are going to hell.

Chapter and verse for "we can't change our destiny"

Nope. The carpenter says all you must do to set foot in the heavenly abode is follow a few commandments, none involve worshipping him or the skydaddy.

Wrong again.

Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

John 5:24
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

John 6:40
For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:47
I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

John 11:25-26
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

John 12:44
Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me.

Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' "

John 4:21
Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

John 4:23
Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

 

[tecoyah]

So.....What yer sayin' is....I am going to this hell place I hear tell of.


But, on the bright side....you wont be there...Right?

 

[tecoyah]

Your statement here is quite confusing...I am placing my faith in the infallibility of Bible Scholars? I base my understanding of God's message based on how Bible Scholars wrote the Bible? Huh?

It should hold no confusion...but Allow me to simplify the intended meaning:

Humans Penned the scrolls, with Human hand, regardless of devine inspiration. Humans then re-wrote the scrolls into Book form, and in the process, over many incarnations of the translations from one language to another, removal and addition of that which fit the politics of the time, and accidental misinterpretation of individual meanings, have created a text with often small resemblance to the ancient scrolls.
It is from these interpretations of the texts that you claim to know God, and in your own interpretation of someone elses translation of anothers rewrite, you place faith in the words coming from what is in essence a man made entity, as it is without a doubt in my mind....corrupted from the origional.

Having had the opportunity to view what I at least, feel was a relatively close example of direct translation from Aramaic, I found many things had changed, some quite dramatically. About ten years ago I also found a copy of new testament translations from an offshoot of Greek language, which was quite fascinating. My point is the Bibles are in some cases, counter to each other, making them all somewhat unreliable in my opinion. Yet, you feel it is YOUR understanding of the scripture that holds undeniable truth, in this you also become.....unreliable.

 

[justone]

.... running to get some asprin.:lol:

Aspirin? The point is - in order to talk to you on your terms I would have to start smoking the same stuff you do. I don't do that stuff. I do not want to have the short memory loss you demonstrate when you forget what you just said and heard. Keep on smoking or sniffing whatever you smoke; I am out.

 

[kal-el]

It's not just petty but also dangerous. The word is grammar.

I know, haha it's rather funny me saying that and spelling "grammar" wrong.

 

[kal-el]

Where in the definition of omnicient does God have to use all His knowledge all the time?

What he's only part-time omniscient?

If you think about it, my use of omniscient (which you haven't biblically or reasonably disproven) ultimately gives God more knowledge and power because it's not just one future he knows but all possble futures from each persons point of view stemming from the multiple choices that person might make.

I have reasonably disproven it, the word omniscient does not appear in the bible. Basically what you say is true according to the bible, accept his knowledge and understanding has no boundaries:

Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.

Oh, like Adam and Eve never got a chance to defend themselves?

Not really just place blame.

Adam ate an apple?

It could have been a bananna, it doesn't say what kind of fruit.

Your Paul thread is so full of errors I can't even respond to it...Paul was born in Jerusalem? This is basic Sunday School stuff here. My kids know this stuff cold.

Yea, I really wasn't clear on that, he was born in Tarsus, his family was descended from the tribe of Benjamin. He was named Saul after the most popular memeber of that family (King Saul). But the thing about Paul is that he was a murderer. In that sense the OT and NT mesh together nicely, as in the NT, Moses was the bloodthirsty, lawgiver. And the father of Christian theology in the NT was the killer Paul. Both are guilty of murder, both break God's 6th commandment. But these 2 swell fellas, put on a pedastool by Christians could not even qualify to teach in any school system nowadays, even if they could have escaped the death penalty, which so many of you Christians advocate.:lol:

Your the one who originally provided the verse to show God is "making a list of people who will be in hell." My statement is from my explaination of that verse.

I'll just take this as you're making it up as you go along:

For all the accusations made against God about how he does nothing about evil, this shows the opposite is true.

But in the book of Revelation, I forgot which verse, it says there's a list of all the saved, I think it's called the book of life?

Why can't you just say, "I was wrong."

If you live in a glass house, you shouldn't throw stones. Just admit that your imprudent articulation of the above is just wishful thinking.

You said, "Adam and Eve never got a chance to defend themselves." I quoted exactly what they said in their defense and you start attacking God's omniscience again. The one doesn't have anything to do with the other. You said they couldn't defend themselves. I proved they did. Admit you're wrong and move on.

Ha, yea Adam became the world's first finger-pointer. They are not even given adaquate time to prepare a defense. Adam becomes the world's first groundkeeper fired by his boss (I'm guessing there was no union ), so he can't file a complaint. And you wanna talk about a defense, alls they did was "pass the buck" or play the blame game, and the serpent took the blame(the buck stops here. )

Again, you make a claim, I prove you wrong and you change the subject to insulting God. How mature.

You have not proven me wrong. You call a defense quickly placing blame on first Eve, then the serpent. If Adam would have got a decent lawyer, he could have won the trial, and they could have stayed in the garden.

Free will is the ability to choose for oneself.

Yes, but an omniscient, celestrial, God knows what we will ultimately choose.

They could choose to do as they were told, or they could choose not to. No free will is being infringed upon. I make my point. You ignore it and change the subject to insulting God again. *sigh*

Wouldn't this God dude be a sadist then? It's a bit like putting a Christmas tree up, and putting presents under the tree, and parking a young child directly in front of it, then instructing him not to open them. Same thing goes for the garden, placing 2 newly formed humans in a garden and planting a forbidden tree in sight, it's like a tease.

"For if by the trespass of one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus." Romans 5:17

O geese, that letter was written by a man who not only was a male chovinist pig, but also thought there were 3 heavens.:lol:

1) The lying spirit was not God himself

O, how convieneint.:lol:

2) No prophets were killed for believing the lies.

Ezekiel 14:9
And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophesy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.

You accuse Christians of twisting the Bible to suit their own purpose...what do you call what you are doing?

Why do you hold such contempt for non-believers? The disciples had a hard time grasping that Jesus was the son of God, he had to appear to them not once, but twice. Thomas had to put his hands in the stigmata. Paul was a pharisee, and a resident of Jerusalem at the same time when the carpenter was defying the law of gravity, rising from the dead, and showboating his magic tricks. He was a hard-core doubter, that is until Jesus appeared to him and recruited him for the mission of spreading the good news. Fast forward 2,000 years. Now people aren't allowed to be skeptical when subjected to wild claims that were unbelievable to those supposeddly on the scene. A bit hypocritical, are we?:lol:

Yet God is omniscient AND he makes choices.

He cannot make any new choices, being all knowing, he would have complete knowledge already. And if he cannot make choices, he's not omnipotent.

God can do any he chooses, and He won't choose to do anything that is against his nature of being perfect.

If perfect means losing a wresting match, and unable to defeat iron chariots, ok then.

Wrong again.

theology The philosophical discipline, esp. in Western Civilization, dealing with the question of God in relation to other philosophical questions; the theoretic part of any religious activity;a branch of Christian systematics dealing with man's creatural state; an historical analysis of the doctrines and beliefs of a religion; a formal course of study of these disciplines; divinity.
The Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

Congrats, you can copy a definition. I do not have the a dictionary on hand, but basically theology opens the bible up showing the reader it's major themes. (And there's alot)

 

[kal-el]

emotion An affective state of conciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like is experienced: distinguished from the cognitive and volitional states of conciousness; any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, or the like; any agitated ir intense state of mind, usually with concurrent physiological changes; an occurance of this; that which brings about any intense state of feeling.

Nope. Nothing in there about emotions being reactions to new knowledge.

Ok, you would show amazement if you got an "A" on a test you did not study for, you would show anger if your spouse would cheat on you, you would show delight if a food tastes good, you would show happiness if you won the lotto, and your definition explains itself.:lol:

"And the Lord said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. But, " hesaid, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Then the Lord said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen." Exodus 33:19-23

Exodus 33:20
But he said, "You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

Nope. No face-gazing here.

Uhh, Jacob sees God's face, his hitman Moses does, and so does Joseph when he defeats God in a wrestling match.:lol:

See the definition of emotion provided.

Emotionconcurrent physiological changes; an occurance of this; that which brings about any intense state of feeling.

In laymen's terms: an occurance of new knowledge that brings a state of feeling.

omniscience is not the same as predestination.

Word-twisting bullshit. Just concede that he's not omniscient.

Good advice! You might try following it.

Semi-intelligent? Do I detect a note of sourness and saltiness that your supernatural claims are getting torn to pieces? Or that your "Holy book" is being shown to have numerous contradictions?

Chapter and verse for "we can't change our destiny"

Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:4-5, 11, 2 Timothy 1:9

Wrong again.

Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

John 5:24
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

John 6:40
For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:47
I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

John 11:25-26
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

John 12:44
Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me.

Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' "

John 4:21
Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

John 4:23
Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Well, the carpenter seems to be in disagreement with himself.

Matthew 19:16-17
Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only 1 who is good, if you want to enter life, obey the commandments.""Which ones?" The man inquired. Jesus replied, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neigbor as yourself."

You wouldn't want to argue with the dead Jew would ya? For future reference, please re-read your bible, as I'm getting quite tired of correcting you on **** you should already be familiar with.

 

[Rev.]

It should hold no confusion...but Allow me to simplify the intended meaning:

Humans Penned the scrolls, with Human hand, regardless of devine inspiration.

What do you mean by "regardless of Divine inspiration?"

Humans then re-wrote the scrolls into Book form, and in the process, over many incarnations of the translations from one language to another, removal and addition of that which fit the politics of the time, and accidental misinterpretation of individual meanings, have created a text with often small resemblance to the ancient scrolls.

Actually, the newer texts are amazingly close to the older texts considering all the copying and stuff it went through. You are implying here that newer texts are mostly different from older texts, and it's simply not true. They are mostly the same. I agree that there have been some additions and changes, however, those changes have not affected the overall message of the Bible that man needs to be saved. And I would disagree that the differences that exist nullify the integrity of the entire Bible anymore than minor factual errors in a news story nullifies the story's newsworthiness.

It is from these interpretations of the texts that you claim to know God, and in your own interpretation of someone elses translation of anothers rewrite, you place faith in the words coming from what is in essence a man made entity, as it is without a doubt in my mind....corrupted from the origional.

You are assuming that I take the scripture at face value and interpret it how I see fit. Nothing can be further from the truth. I have a Greek New Testament (the NT was written in Greek, not Aramaic) and several Greek resources as well as some Hebrew, plus 15 years of study on Bible Culture, History, Theology, Exegesis, etc. I have an extensive personal library containing many study helps, expository references, commentaries, encyclopedias, handbooks, dictionaries, and concordances. If at any point you disagree with a particular interpretation I write here, say so and tell me why. But know this: I operate from the premise that the Bible is authoritative...so if you object to what I say because you feel the entire Bible is garbage then we will have no grounds for discussion.

My point is the Bibles are in some cases, counter to each other, making them all somewhat unreliable in my opinion.

It is true that translations can differ. I own several versions that I compare with one another when I am in study just to see how the different translations affect the meaning. I also compare with the original language to see how well the text renders the original meaning. But the differences make the versions far from unreliable...the differences actually help bring out some of the different nuances in the meaning of the original text. I also pay attention to the purpose of the translators...whether it be to translate the text word for word like the RSV does (which tends to make it a bit stilted when you read it) or if it is translating the essence of the idea like the NIV does. With the KJV, you have to be careful with how the meaning of English has changes in 400 years of use.

Yet, you feel it is YOUR understanding of the scripture that holds undeniable truth, in this you also become.....unreliable.

Not mine alone. Offer an alternate interpretation. We'll discuss it.

 

[justone]

Having had the opportunity to view what I at least, feel was a relatively close example of direct translation from Aramaic, I found many things had changed, some quite dramatically. About ten years ago I also found a copy of new testament translations from an offshoot of Greek language, which was quite fascinating. My point is the Bibles are in some cases, counter to each other, making them all somewhat unreliable in my opinion.

I’ve read the Bible in my native language, I’ve tried to read the Bible in the ancient variant of my native language with a Hebrew “’original”’ on one side and translation done 300 years ago on another side, I read it English and I prefer the most modern version in both languages, though if another version is handy I can use it. I realize that even within the same version the scriptures and descriptions of the same events do not match word by word and on terms of linguistically exercises and/or pure logic even contradict each other– look at the NT. I am not a Bible scholar or linguist or a theologist and I do not make time for Bible studies. I used to be almost like Kel-al (less wasting my time for the stuff he does), I was an atheist by birth, and I had read hundreds of books of all kinds before I got the Bible in my hands the first time. The Bible put all things in place for me. It turned to be the Book of the all books, no matter the language or version. And nothing could ever change things after that.
Whatever makes it unreliable for you ( not really sure – but give you a benefit of doubt), in my view doesn’t bother me, as long as the Bible meets the primary design to be the Book of all books for people of all times and all stages of literacy and all languages. If it works it’s done right.

You once expressed your fascination with Magdalene in scriptures.
It is a fascinating detail, but you may be even more fascinated if you look at the map and find a little dot where Jesus said just a few things – you could put all His preserved sayings in a couple of posts over here. Then look at the map and see what His posts did to the world, after He left. And try to explain it in thousands upon thousands contradicting to each other books. I prefer the explanation of the Bible instead of the thousands of contradicting books.

If you look at the map you will see the impact of a force. You do not have to see the force in order to measure its impact. You see circles on the water and you know what size of a stone could make them. Here, in the case of Christ’s posts, you see a hurricane on the global scale. And this is really fascinating.
I also know how it impacted me personally before I ever thought about the global impact. You can see how it impacted kal-el; he is just so overwhelmed; he is burning himself, fulfilling God’s purpose like a dog biting some Christian a$$es ( including my own) so they won’t get so fat; or whatever his purpose is in your opinion – he is certainly impacted by the same force.

 

[kal-el]

Originally posted by justone
You can see how it impacted kal-el; he is just so overwhelmed; he is burning himself,

Excuse me if I remain skeptical exactly like the very same people you idolize. It was fine centuries ago, but not now. And the Bible tells us not to believe anything without proof.

 

[Thinker]

I know, haha it's rather funny me saying that and spelling "grammar" wrong.

This could go on forever. It should be "spelling grammar wrongly".

The general standard of English here is very poor, although there are some
delightful postings. Irritating though errors in grammar, spelling, and
construction may be, I feel that here they should be ignored when the
meaning is clear. We all make mistakes.

My one exception would be for posters who seem deliberately to use
obscure language to give themselves a way to wriggle out of justified criticism.

Enough. No more.

 

[tecoyah]

...so if you object to what I say because you feel the entire Bible is garbage then we will have no grounds for discussion.


At No Point did I state such a thing, nor would I. I have gained much from the Texts, as have you. My comments were intended to touch on a deeper evaluation of Faith, and as seems par for the course.....failed to do so, rendering this discussion futile.



Not mine alone. Offer an alternate interpretation. We'll discuss it.

I have played the "Biblical Dissection" game too many times to want to do it again. As stated above I was hoping to discuss the Use of scripture as Truth, which is difficult to do with the devout.....unfortunately only the devout will have the information I seek. Nothing Like a Catch22 for frustration formation.

But thanx for your time.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I have played the "Biblical Dissection" game too many times to want to do it again. As stated above I was hoping to discuss the Use of scripture as Truth, which is difficult to do with the devout.....unfortunately only the devout will have the information I seek. Nothing Like a Catch22 for frustration formation.

But thanx for your time.

I think Rev is probably among the devout, but he is probably among the many believers who are far more Bible literalists than I am or than you probably are. I do believe that Truth is found in the Scriptures but it will not be discerned other than by considering the whole rather than the pieces. And even then it will be only partly discerned. As the Apostle Paul explained, now we see through a dark glass. The unobscured vision will be revealed later.

I also believe scripture is still being written, but because of our traditions and conditioning, the new stuff will never be incorporated into the 'the book'.

 

[tecoyah]

I do believe that Truth is found in the Scriptures but it will not be discerned other than by considering the whole rather than the pieces. And even then it will be only partly discerned. As the Apostle Paul explained, now we see through a dark glass. The unobscured vision will be revealed later.

I also believe scripture is still being written, but because of our traditions and conditioning, the new stuff will never be incorporated into the 'the book'.

Now....Thats what I am talking about.

 

[Rev.]

I do believe that Truth is found in the Scriptures but it will not be discerned other than by considering the whole rather than the pieces. And even then it will be only partly discerned. As the Apostle Paul explained, now we see through a dark glass. The unobscured vision will be revealed later.

I also believe scripture is still being written, but because of our traditions and conditioning, the new stuff will never be incorporated into the 'the book'.

I agree! Though I must say there is value to be found in the pieces. The pieces must be considered in the context of the whole in order to be properly understood.

 

[Rev.]

At No Point did I state such a thing, nor would I. I have gained much from the Texts, as have you. My comments were intended to touch on a deeper evaluation of Faith, and as seems par for the course.....failed to do so, rendering this discussion futile.

I very sorry I did not make myself clear. I was simply establishing that any discussion of scripture between us would have as a premise my acceptance of the scripture as authoritative. If you could not at least accept that, discussion would be difficult. There was no personal attack of you intended.

I have played the "Biblical Dissection" game too many times to want to do it again. As stated above I was hoping to discuss the Use of scripture as Truth, which is difficult to do with the devout.....unfortunately only the devout will have the information I seek. Nothing Like a Catch22 for frustration formation.

But thanx for your time.

So, please...what do you mean by "Use of scripture as Truth," why is it difficult to do with the devout, and what are you hoping to learn?

 

[kal-el]

This could go on forever. It should be "spelling grammar wrongly".

Why make the word "wrong" an adverb? The meaning of my articulation was (I know, haha it's rather funny me saying that and (me)spelling (the word)"grammar" wrong.


For God's sake this is a ****ing internet forum, and correcting grammar mistakes is atomic, if not downright juvenile. The only thing that crawls under my skin are the use of double negatives, but unless the grammar mistakes make a post difficult to read, I would suggest that they be overlooked.

My one exception would be for posters who seem to meretriciously correct grammar mistakes, portraying themselves as one who is born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

Enough said.

 

[justone]

Excuse me if I remain skeptical .

overwhelmed, burning and sceptical .........
I am grateful to you anyway, if it was not for you I won't learn so many interesting things about some details of the Bible as I have been learning from Rev.'s replies. It makes up for me missing Bible studies. God bless you for your work.

 

[tecoyah]

I very sorry I did not make myself clear. I was simply establishing that any discussion of scripture between us would have as a premise my acceptance of the scripture as authoritative. If you could not at least accept that, discussion would be difficult. There was no personal attack of you intended.



So, please...what do you mean by "Use of scripture as Truth," why is it difficult to do with the devout, and what are you hoping to learn?

No offense was taken....just clarifying.
By scripture as truth , I mean the blind acceptance of biblical verse taking the place of observation. I have been in many discussions to attempt enlightenment as to the reasons people can deny physical reality (those things obvious to a thinking mind), in favor of certain aspects of Scriptural accounts. I find it very hard to discuss these things with those who fully accept the Bibles (fundamentalists, if you will), without causing what would seem disrespect, and is not intended to be such. Having been Catholic for decades, I know what "I" thought.....but that is not enough to form a valid hypothesis.

 

[Rev.]

No offense was taken....just clarifying.
By scripture as truth , I mean the blind acceptance of biblical verse taking the place of observation. I have been in many discussions to attempt enlightenment as to the reasons people can deny physical reality (those things obvious to a thinking mind), in favor of certain aspects of Scriptural accounts. I find it very hard to discuss these things with those who fully accept the Bibles (fundamentalists, if you will), without causing what would seem disrespect, and is not intended to be such. Having been Catholic for decades, I know what "I" thought.....but that is not enough to form a valid hypothesis.

I have been in many discussions myself in which a person insists on taken a literal meaning of a verse rather than try to understand what was being taught based on the context of who it was originally said to and what issues that person was dealing with...most of Paul's writings cause difficulty for those reasons.

On the other hand, I do believe in miracles. I believe that in the unsophisticated culture of the Ancient world, they were especially responsive to miracles because they were of a mindset that every natural occurance was actually the work of some invisible hands. Since the dawn of the Age of Reason, we are so into looking for the invisible strings that make everything work that if some miracle were to happen, we'd be convinced that it had a "reasonable explaination" even if we could never really think of one. I believe miracles happen still today...every day...but we've lost the ability to "see them." I think the Bible would describe us as "spiritually blind" with "hardened hearts."

 

[kal-el]

overwhelmed, burning and sceptical .........
I am grateful to you anyway, if it was not for you I won't learn so many interesting things about some details of the Bible as I have been learning from Rev.'s replies. It makes up for me missing Bible studies. God bless you for your work.

Thankyou, but I was just telling doughgirl that Paul was the biggest skeptic until presented with proof. And the disciple Thomas had to literally touch Jesus' wounds and wrap his arm around his waist to believe. So, do you see where my skepticism comes from? Do you see why the burden of proof is always on the believer?

 

[Rev.]

Thankyou, but I was just telling doughgirl that Paul was the biggest skeptic until presented with proof. And the disciple Thomas had to literally touch Jesus' wounds and wrap his arm around his waist to believe. So, do you see where my skepticism comes from? Do you see why the burden of proof is always on the believer?

No, Paul wasn't skeptical at all. He was 100% CONVINCED that Christians were WRONG, they were HERETICS and BLASPHEMERS of the Name of the Most Holy God. He devoted his every effort to exterminating them. Those are hardly the actions of a skeptic.

Thomas doubted. But what did he doubt? The existence of God? No, he was a good Jew. Believing in God was as natural as breathing. What he doubted was that the man he called "Rabbi," who he saw crucified, dead and buried HAD RISEN AGAIN. Yes, he doubted that. Who could blame him?

Your behavior here hasn't resembled the actions of a skeptic. A skeptic would have questions, yes, but then would thoughtfully consider the answer and either accept them, reject them, or raise new questions based on what he has been told. You, on the otherhand, seem pretty convinced in your position. You ignore the answers to your questions and repeat your same old questions and accusations more aggressively.

I really encourage you to think about some of the things that have been said here. If you end up concluding there is not God...fine. But the interesting thing is, your questions all come from the assumption that there is. I think your real problem is resolving a "theoretical" God with the one you experience. If you could put aside your prejudices, you might find a way to resolve the two.

Best of luck.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I agree! Though I must say there is value to be found in the pieces. The pieces must be considered in the context of the whole in order to be properly understood.

Yes! Then we do agree on more than I previously supposed we probably would. :smile:

Of course when we teach (or preach) Bible, we have to do it in pieces as it takes years to do a thorough exegesis on the whole. But even in the pieces we have to read them through the eyes of those who wrote them or we will frequently miss their meaning and/or intent.