PDA

View Full Version : Is the Bible the Word of God?



Craig.Paardekooper
01-15-2014, 02:03 PM
"The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers.

It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God."

I would agree with the above quote. Richard has shown that the Bible has discernible unifying patterns throughout - as is witnessed by the BibleWheel pattern - this indicates a certain level of inspiration. He has also shown that the Bible contains errors - which indicates human input. It therefore seems conclusive that the Bible is the product of both human and divine input.

Rose
01-15-2014, 08:15 PM
I would agree with the above quote. Richard has shown that the Bible has discernible unifying patterns throughout - as is witnessed by the BibleWheel pattern - this indicates a certain level of inspiration. He has also shown that the Bible contains errors - which indicates human input. It therefore seems conclusive that the Bible is the product of both human and divine input.

Hello Craig,

This could prove to be a very interesting thread that you've started. :D

It seems you are willing to acknowledge that the Bible contains errors, thus concluding that god allowed a work attributed to his inspiration to be faulty. How can this be? There is just no way the universe in all its majesty could ever be the work of a vengeful, immoral, war mongering god like the one portrayed in the Bible.

If you were god, would you want your name associated with a book that claimed to be inspired by you and described you as a genocidal, unjust, gender biased monster? Not to mention being filled with erroneous facts and bad reasoning ... I would think not!

Works can be inspired and contain unifying patterns without the need of a god. Just because we don't know how certain patterns like the BibleWheel came to be, does not mean we must posit a god. There are still many mysteries left to be solved and the BibleWheel is just one of them. It is one thing to feel the need for a creator god to explain what we see in the world around us, and quite another to use a god such as is described in the Bible to fill that need.

Take care,
Rose

Gambini
01-15-2014, 10:25 PM
Craig, I've been arguing this same point with double R (Richard and Rose) from day one. Even if one were to grant the supposed "immorality" in the bible, that does absolutely nothing to change the fact that the bible is armed to the teeth with evidence TO BACK UP ITS OWN CLAIM that it was divinely inspired. And the idea that "there is no biblical canon" (which is Richard's claim) is absurd. The bible wheel ITSELF validates the 66 book canon (in addition to providing clear evidence that this canon is divinely inspired). So of course there is a valid biblical canon. The 66 chapters of Isaiah correlating with the 66 book canon is additional evidence as well. I liked your book on that subject btw.

BINI (The Big Meanie).

Gambini
01-15-2014, 11:03 PM
"It seems you are willing to acknowledge that the Bible contains errors, thus concluding that god allowed a work attributed to his inspiration to be faulty. How can this be?"

Rose, it is PERFECTLY consistent for the biblical God to allow his word to be freely interfered with. Hell, the bible OPENS with his word being freely interfered with (remember the garden of eden?). In fact, the bible freely admits that God's creation is in a fallen state. Hence, God's ENTIRE CREATION has been interfered with. In fact, THE HUMAN GENOME itself is the word of God and yet God allows every human genome (HIS WORD) to be interfered with (gradually suffering decay). So of course God allows ppl to freely interfere with his word. Therefore, it is definitely a possibility that the biblical passages you feel are morally wrong are simply examples of fallible men freely interfering with the original autographs.

"If you were god, would you want your name associated with a book that claimed to be inspired by you and described you as a genocidal, unjust, gender biased monster?"

That's the point. He DIDN'T do that. The argument is that even if we granted the problems you raise about the biblical text, they could EASILY be explained as being freely tampered by fallible men AFTER they were originally inspired. So God wouldn't be "associating" himself with the tampering in that case (since the tampering would be a corrupting of his originally infallible text AFTER the fact).

"Just because we don't know how certain patterns like the BibleWheel came to be, does not mean we must posit a god"

Of course we do because THE ENTIRE BIBLE POSITS A GOD! The entire bible posits an entire line of prophets who were divinely inspired by God. The idea that you can have supernatural evidence for the bible and then claim at the same time it can't be evidence for the God proclaimed THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BOOK is just ludicrous. I'm sorry but I just don't see how you could even make that argument.

Take care

BINI The Mystic/Meanie

rdelmonico
01-16-2014, 02:59 AM
If you want to understand the Bible better, we have to look at genetics.
The Bible starts off with the book Genesis. What is the seed of the woman?
What is the best explanation of the genetic manipulation occurring in Genesis 6?
What we are dealing with is information. The corruption of information is described in the second law of thermal dynamics (times arrow pointing down).
Time is somehow involved. This includes cause and effect, free will vs predestination, ect...
Has anyone here spent the time to really try to understand what the Bible says about genes.


As long as unity or oneness exist then nothing needs to be proved, but as soon as division occurs, then it may be that something needs to be proven.
God knows the end from the beginning and so he would not be proving anything to himself, it must be toward his creation that the proof is aimed.

David M
01-16-2014, 07:53 AM
If you want to understand the Bible better, we have to look at genetics.
The Bible starts off with the book Genesis. What is the seed of the woman?
What is the best explanation of the genetic manipulation occurring in Genesis 6?
What we are dealing with is information. The corruption of information is described in the second law of thermal dynamics (times arrow pointing down).
Time is somehow involved. This includes cause and effect, free will vs predestination, ect...
Has anyone here spent the time to really try to understand what the Bible says about genes.


As long as unity or oneness exist then nothing needs to be proved, but as soon as division occurs, then it may be that something needs to be proven.
God knows the end from the beginning and so he would not be proving anything to himself, it must be toward his creation that the proof is aimed.

Genetics, genes and Genesis come from the same root to do with the beginning of life. Scientists are a long way off explaining the origin of the first gene essential for the simplest of cells.

Jesus had a Genesis, he was begat. Jesus could not have been with God at the beginning before man was created.


If you are referring to Genesis 6 as God's Angels interfering with the human gene pool, then you have taken the wrong understanding of the phrase "Sons of God" which can be human and in the context of Genesis 6 are human. Geneis 6 referring to God's Angels is a cunningly devised fable and you know we have guard against such.


I suggest errors in the Bible are man-made. It is the fault of man not to preserve the word of God as it was originally written down. A good attempt was made at the beginning to copy and preserve the writings, but eventually corrupt men have introduced corruption, whether intentional or not. Now we are in a position to correct many of the errors; but we have lost the original documents.

The errors that have been introduced is by God allowing man to rule himself and allowing man to have the free choice given to Adam and Eve at the beginning. When Adam was perfect he had complete jurisdiction over everything God had made. Once Adam had sinned, the jurisdiction was (quote)"put into the hands of ha Satan". Ha Satan is the god of this world. Ha Satan is not a supernatural being. Ha Satan represents that which is in the mind of sinful man, and is manifested by sinful man in the the things he does. Just as Adam and Eve made their first mistake, so man has continued to make mistakes. God will eventually correct everything, when his Kingdom is established. Until then, God is leaving us (man) to live with our mistakes. We should not expect God to correct every mistake man makes at the time the mistake is made. God's plan allows for the mistakes of man and they will not divert God's plan. It is sufficient for God to select the faithful men and women from all generations that will occupy God's Kingdom in the new age to come, in which everything will made new and will be perfect.


David

Rose
01-16-2014, 01:06 PM
"It seems you are willing to acknowledge that the Bible contains errors, thus concluding that god allowed a work attributed to his inspiration to be faulty. How can this be?"

Rose, it is PERFECTLY consistent for the biblical God to allow his word to be freely interfered with. Hell, the bible OPENS with his word being freely interfered with (remember the garden of eden?). In fact, the bible freely admits that God's creation is in a fallen state. Hence, God's ENTIRE CREATION has been interfered with. In fact, THE HUMAN GENOME itself is the word of God and yet God allows every human genome (HIS WORD) to be interfered with (gradually suffering decay). So of course God allows ppl to freely interfere with his word. Therefore, it is definitely a possibility that the biblical passages you feel are morally wrong are simply examples of fallible men freely interfering with the original autographs.
Hello Gambini, :yo:

If it is perfectly consistent for the Biblegod to allow interference in what is commonly held to be his word, how is one to know the difference between the god inspired part, the interfered part, or the totally man-made part? To me it just sounds like an excuse to justify all the garbage that the Bible contains. :p

How do you know creation has been interfered with? How do you know that creation isn't exactly the way your Biblegod intended it to be?



"If you were god, would you want your name associated with a book that claimed to be inspired by you and described you as a genocidal, unjust, gender biased monster?"

That's the point. He DIDN'T do that. The argument is that even if we granted the problems you raise about the biblical text, they could EASILY be explained as being freely tampered by fallible men AFTER they were originally inspired. So God wouldn't be "associating" himself with the tampering in that case (since the tampering would be a corrupting of his originally infallible text AFTER the fact).

Since you have no idea what the original texts said, there is no way to determine how the original texts were changed. If your god were real and he inspired the original texts, but those texts were changed by men tampering with them, then there is no way to ever know what god inspired in the first place. It's all just a crap shoot!




"Just because we don't know how certain patterns like the BibleWheel came to be, does not mean we must posit a god"

Of course we do because THE ENTIRE BIBLE POSITS A GOD! The entire bible posits an entire line of prophets who were divinely inspired by God. The idea that you can have supernatural evidence for the bible and then claim at the same time it can't be evidence for the God proclaimed THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BOOK is just ludicrous. I'm sorry but I just don't see how you could even make that argument.

Take care

BINI The Mystic/Meanie

Who is to say that the BibleWheel pattern is supernatural? Just because we don't understand how it came to be does not mean it is supernatural. Of course the Bible posits god, that is what the whole Bible is about ... primitive men, who knew next to nothing about the workings of the universe, positing their ideas about a mythical god, who they thought created everything.

Take care,
Rose

Rose
01-16-2014, 02:28 PM
I suggest errors in the Bible are man-made. It is the fault of man not to preserve the word of God as it was originally written down. A good attempt was made at the beginning to copy and preserve the writings, but eventually corrupt men have introduced corruption, whether intentional or not. Now we are in a position to correct many of the errors; but we have lost the original documents.

The errors that have been introduced is by God allowing man to rule himself and allowing man to have the free choice given to Adam and Eve at the beginning. When Adam was perfect he had complete jurisdiction over everything God had made. Once Adam had sinned, the jurisdiction was (quote)"put into the hands of ha Satan". Ha Satan is the god of this world. Ha Satan is not a supernatural being. Ha Satan represents that which is in the mind of sinful man, and is manifested by sinful man in the the things he does. Just as Adam and Eve made their first mistake, so man has continued to make mistakes. God will eventually correct everything, when his Kingdom is established. Until then, God is leaving us (man) to live with our mistakes. We should not expect God to correct every mistake man makes at the time the mistake is made. God's plan allows for the mistakes of man and they will not divert God's plan. It is sufficient for God to select the faithful men and women from all generations that will occupy God's Kingdom in the new age to come, in which everything will made new and will be perfect.


David

Hello David,

How could you possible think a deity capable of creating the universe and everything in it, would leave to humans the responsibility of writing and preserving a written document of his words in its original form? Why would a creator even use the fallible method of writing to convey his laws, when they could have been formed in the heart of man like an instinct. Just think, would you ever use one of your immature children to write down and deliver an important message that you wanted given to your other children. I think not.

You say that the errors in the Bible are caused by god allowing man to rule himself and have free choice. Well, if that were really the case then the total blame lies with god, because he knew from the beginning exactly what was going to happen and he could have prevented it.


Take care,
Rose

Gambini
01-16-2014, 06:30 PM
Greetings Rosetta :yo:

"If it is perfectly consistent for the Biblegod to allow interference in what is commonly held to be his word, how is one to know the difference between the god inspired part, the interfered part, or the totally man-made part?"

That's a good question. My response is as follows ... ANYTHING in the bible that can be shown to be "illogical" or "immoral" would obviously be a product of fallible men and ANYTHING in the bible that can be shown to be supernatural in origin would be a product of divine inspiration. We already know that EVERY BOOK IN THE BIBLE (all 66 books) is divinely inspired because the large scale structure of the bible (the "bible wheel") runs through all 66 books (the 66 chapters of Isaiah corresponding with the 66 book canon also validates the 66 book canon). We also know that Genesis 1:1-5 AND John 1:1-5 is divinely inspired per the "creation holograph". Hence, we already know ...

1) God exists (since both Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5 affirm that God exists).
2) God created the universe (confirmed by both Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5).
3) Jesus is God (per John 1:1-5).
4) Every book in the bible was originally inspired in its totality (meaning the autographs).

Each of these four points LOGICALLY FOLLOW from the evidence in the "creation holograph", the "bible wheel" and the 66 chapters of Isaiah corresponding with the 66 books of the bible (not to mention the genetic evidence, the patterns in the breastplate of the high priest and the "star of Israel" pattern all linking back to Genesis 1:1).

"How do you know creation has been interfered with? How do you know that creation isn't exactly the way your Biblegod intended it to be?"

THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT IS PREMISED ON THE IDEA OF A FALLEN CREATION. And even in the absence of the NT, you (and Richard as well) GRANT that we can deduce what is objectively moral from that which is objectively immoral. Surely you would agree that it would be immoral for God to INTENTIONALLY create man in a state where he slowly rots and decays, right? We already saw that God exists and that Jesus is God (from the four points I outlined). So I can use my rational mind and deduce that God, who walked among man and was humble enough to allow his own creation to rebel and MURDER his human vessel, would not INTENTIONALLY create a fallen and suffering world. The very fact that we OBSERVE a fallen and suffering world DEMONSTRATES that creation has been interfered with (which again, is the entire premise of the whole NT).

"Who is to say that the BibleWheel pattern is supernatural? Just because we don't understand how it came to be does not mean it is supernatural"

This is a No God of the gaps fallacy. You're basically arguing that NOTHING can ever be evidence for God (or the supernatural). The bible wheel is CLEAR evidence of a supernatural hand. You can't just cover your eyes and WISH that maybe one day there will be some unknown naturalistic explanation. This reminds me of when atheists argue that they would believe in God if he visually appeared to them or if he audibly spoke to them. The fact of the matter is that if someone is UNWILLING to believe something, then they will reject it REGARDLESS of evidence ...

Even if God appeared to atheists, they would begin doubting their experience after about two weeks. That's the NATURE of the man who is skeptical of God. After about two months, the entire encounter would be explained away as a temporary delusion ...

And it's not just atheists ... There are actually MORE ppl who reject the reality of the external world than there are who reject the reality of a God. For example, a BILLION Hindus (and even some philosophers and physicists) reject the existence of the external world. Think about that. They WILLFULLY reject what is staring them in the face!

SHALOMness for you and yours :pray:

BINI

Richard Amiel McGough
01-16-2014, 09:01 PM
Greetings Rosetta :yo:


If it is perfectly consistent for the Biblegod to allow interference in what is commonly held to be his word, how is one to know the difference between the god inspired part, the interfered part, or the totally man-made part?

That's a good question. My response is as follows ... ANYTHING in the bible that can be shown to be "illogical" or "immoral" would obviously be a product of fallible men and ANYTHING in the bible that can be shown to be supernatural in origin would be a product of divine inspiration. We already know that EVERY BOOK IN THE BIBLE (all 66 books) is divinely inspired because the large scale structure of the bible (the "bible wheel") runs through all 66 books (the 66 chapters of Isaiah corresponding with the 66 book canon also validates the 66 book canon). We also know that Genesis 1:1-5 AND John 1:1-5 is divinely inspired per the "creation holograph". Hence, we already know ...

1) God exists (since both Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5 affirm that God exists).
2) God created the universe (confirmed by both Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5).
3) Jesus is God (per John 1:1-5).
4) Every book in the bible was originally inspired in its totality (meaning the autographs).

Each of these four points LOGICALLY FOLLOW from the evidence in the "creation holograph", the "bible wheel" and the 66 chapters of Isaiah corresponding with the 66 books of the bible (not to mention the genetic evidence, the patterns in the breastplate of the high priest and the "star of Israel" pattern all linking back to Genesis 1:1).

Hey there Mr. Gambini, Sir! :yo:

As usual, your logic is sloppy and filled with errors. The holographs are found in a very limited number of verses, only a few dozen or so. Therefore, they give no support to your assertion that the "Every book in the bible was originally inspired in its totality." Strike one.

Likewise, neither the Bible Wheel nor the Isaiah-Bible Correlation are nearly as "perfect" as would be expected if they were designed by an omniscient being. That's strike two.

Third, the fact that Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5 (the source of the Creation Holograph) "affirm that God exists" does not mean that your particular kind of God, or any God for that matter, actually exists. There could be some another explanation.

Fourth: Genesis is based on erroneous Ancient Near East cosmological mythology commonly believed by ignorant people 3000 years ago. It is demonstrably false. This proves your second point cannot be true.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the evidence you cited is entirely without merit. On the contrary, it is true that the Bible Wheel, Holographs, and Isaiah Bible Correlation are good evidence for "something" going on in the Bible that needs to be explained. But it is also true that the Bible is filled with things that are irrational and immoral and false and which cannot be attributed to men as if they were not part of the autographs. This is what makes the Bible such an intriguing mystery. It has signs of "something supernatural" going on coupled with strong evidence that the God it describes cannot be true.

Quite a mystery, eh? :p





How do you know creation has been interfered with? How do you know that creation isn't exactly the way your Biblegod intended it to be?

THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT IS PREMISED ON THE IDEA OF A FALLEN CREATION. And even in the absence of the NT, you (and Richard as well) GRANT that we can deduce what is objectively moral from that which is objectively immoral. Surely you would agree that it would be immoral for God to INTENTIONALLY create man in a state where he slowly rots and decays, right? We already saw that God exists and that Jesus is God (from the four points I outlined). So I can use my rational mind and deduce that God, who walked among man and was humble enough to allow his own creation to rebel and MURDER his human vessel, would not INTENTIONALLY create a fallen and suffering world. The very fact that we OBSERVE a fallen and suffering world DEMONSTRATES that creation has been interfered with (which again, is the entire premise of the whole NT).

Yes, the mythological chapters of Genesis play a prominent role in the NT whereas they play almost no role in the OT. This suggests they were made up (or accepted) long after most of the OT was written. They appear only in the late literature written after the close of the OT canon, in the Apocrypha and the NT. I talk about this in my article Where's Adam? The Mystery of the Missing Mythological Chapters of Genesis (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/17/wheres-adam-the-mystery-of-the-missing-mythological-chapters-of-genesis/). Is it not strange the the story of the origin of all life, man's fall into sin, the flood, the tower of babel, are almost entirely missing from the entire OT? Didn't any of the OT "prophets" know anything about that stuff? And why then does it appear so prominently in the NT, along with all sorts of Greek mythology about fallen angels and multi-headed dragons?

Your "proof" that the evil in the world must have come from some source other than God denies that God is the source of all. If God is omniscient and he intentionally created the world in such a way that it would certainly exist in its present state, then we must conclude he desired it to be in its present state. This is an old, old problem that Christians have been wrestling with since the beginning. Superficial answers don't help anyone understand.





Who is to say that the BibleWheel pattern is supernatural? Just because we don't understand how it came to be does not mean it is supernatural

This is a No God of the gaps fallacy. You're basically arguing that NOTHING can ever be evidence for God (or the supernatural). The bible wheel is CLEAR evidence of a supernatural hand. You can't just cover your eyes and WISH that maybe one day there will be some unknown naturalistic explanation. This reminds me of when atheists argue that they would believe in God if he visually appeared to them or if he audibly spoke to them. The fact of the matter is that if someone is UNWILLING to believe something, then they will reject it REGARDLESS of evidence ...

What is a "No God of the Gaps fallacy" supposed to mean? Is it the "fallacy" of refusing to accept the fallacy that our ignorance implies God did it?

She did not say that no evidence would be sufficient. She said the existing evidence is not sufficient, and the fact that your assertions were filled with errors and outrageous overstatements justifies her rejection of them. If you want to convince anyone of anything, you will need to choose to use REAL LOGIC and REAL EVIDENCE. I've been trying to help you in this regard, but it seems you don't want to correct your errors. That seems very strange, since if you desire is to convince anyone of anything, the one thing of primary importance it make arguments based on solid logic and facts. You simply are not doing that.

I am not "wishing" for a "naturalistic" explanation. And I am not "unwilling" to believe anything as such. I'll accept the best explanation, whatever it may be. My problem is that I have no explanation at all! As I've explained in great detail, it is simply impossible to believe that the Bible was designed by the God it describes. So what am I supposed to do? If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears.

And speaking of folks who reject truth REGARDLESS of evidence, that describes the essential character of religious believers.

Shine on, my friend!

Richard

David M
01-17-2014, 01:35 AM
Hello Rose

Hello David,
How could you possible think a deity capable of creating the universe and everything in it, would leave to humans the responsibility of writing and preserving a written document of his words in its original form? I do not have to "think", because that is the way it is. The truth in God's word is still there. Man-made garbage just makes it a little more difficult to find.


Why would a creator even use the fallible method of writing to convey his laws, when they could have been formed in the heart of man like an instinct. Just think, would you ever use one of your immature children to write down and deliver an important message that you wanted given to your other children. I think not.The method of inspiration was not fallible. If you are careless in preserving something has been given you to personally preserve, then whose fault is it if you fail to preserve it? You want to absolve yourself of all responsibility and blame God for letting you do that. God made the insects; do you want to be like an insect and operate on instinct alone? Why not just blame the people before you for not preserving God's word as they should?

Who said the writers were immature? All it takes is an adult person who has learnt to write. God could have written everything on stone as he did with the Ten Commandments. Whose fault is it that the first set got broken? The scribes wrote what the prophets told them. We are talking about a supernatural event to be given the word of God by inspiration. This is why the Bible is not just the writings of bronze-age men as you like to think it is. Thinking as you do, makes you like the bronze-age people you speak of.


You say that the errors in the Bible are caused by god allowing man to rule himself and have free choice. Well, if that were really the case then the total blame lies with god, because he knew from the beginning exactly what was going to happen and he could have prevented it.So it is God's fault you are born and you have the opportunity of eternal life. You refuse to believe God's word/promises, so why blame God for your own faults?

All the best
David

Rose
01-17-2014, 12:45 PM
Hello Rose
I do not have to "think", because that is the way it is. The truth in God's word is still there. Man-made garbage just makes it a little more difficult to find.

The method of inspiration was not fallible. If you are careless in preserving something has been given you to personally preserve, then whose fault is it if you fail to preserve it? You want to absolve yourself of all responsibility and blame God for letting you do that. God made the insects; do you want to be like an insect and operate on instinct alone? Why not just blame the people before you for not preserving God's word as they should?

Hello David,

If god is true as you believe, then of course he is to blame for all the garbage in the Bible. Obviously the task of preserving the original words of Scripture was beyond the capabilities of men, so your god would be held responsible. In the same manner parents are held responsible for the actions of their underage children.


Who said the writers were immature? All it takes is an adult person who has learnt to write. God could have written everything on stone as he did with the Ten Commandments. Whose fault is it that the first set got broken? The scribes wrote what the prophets told them. We are talking about a supernatural event to be given the word of God by inspiration. This is why the Bible is not just the writings of bronze-age men as you like to think it is. Thinking as you do, makes you like the bronze-age people you speak of.

So it is God's fault you are born and you have the opportunity of eternal life. You refuse to believe God's word/promises, so why blame God for your own faults?

All the best
David

It takes a lot more then the ability to write to be considered mature. Children in 2nd and 3rd grade begin to learn how to write stories, but they are far from considered mature. Again, if the Biblegod were real then he most certainly would be held accountable for what Moses did, because god was the one who required something of Moses that he was unable to accomplish.

I am not blaming god for my birth or my faults, since I don't believe in his existence. I am fully responsible for my own actions and whatever purpose and meaning my life has. Whatever I make of my life is because of my efforts and the efforts of others, it has nothing to do with some supernatural deity. I am amazed when I hear people thanking god, when a doctor saves a persons life, but when a person dies at the hands of a doctor they blame the doctor.

Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
01-18-2014, 01:26 AM
Hello David,

If god is true as you believe, then of course he is to blame for all the garbage in the Bible. Obviously the task of preserving the original words of Scripture was beyond the capabilities of men, so your god would be held responsible. In the same manner parents are held responsible for the actions of their underage children.



It takes a lot more then the ability to write to be considered mature. Children in 2nd and 3rd grade begin to learn how to write stories, but they are far from considered mature. Again, if the Biblegod were real then he most certainly would be held accountable for what Moses did, because god was the one who required something of Moses that he was unable to accomplish.

I am not blaming god for my birth or my faults, since I don't believe in his existence. I am fully responsible for my own actions and whatever purpose and meaning my life has. Whatever I make of my life is because of my efforts and the efforts of others, it has nothing to do with some supernatural deity. I am amazed when I hear people thanking god, when a doctor saves a persons life, but when a person dies at the hands of a doctor they blame the doctor.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

Why do you say:
I am not blaming god for my birth or my faults, since I don't believe in his existence.

But you said earlier:...
Originally Posted by Rose
Hi Joel,

I answered your questions in Red.



God Bless,
Rose

Hi Rose:
Jesus is speaking of all the blood that had been shed up to that generation (the He is speaking to)....He ends with the statement that there house (the Temple) is left desolate, which of course is exactly what happened.

So, maybe I confused your statements but it seems as if you do think god exists and Jesus might be a real person but then you just do not believe in IHVH the "biblegod"....

Please explain....

Namaste,

Mystykal

David M
01-18-2014, 05:27 AM
Hello Rose

Hello David,

If god is true as you believe, then of course he is to blame for all the garbage in the Bible. Obviously the task of preserving the original words of Scripture was beyond the capabilities of men, so your god would be held responsible. In the same manner parents are held responsible for the actions of their underage children.In the sense that God is the Creator, then God has to take ultimate responsibility for the way things have been set up. If a car goes out of control due to a mechanical failure and kills the driver of the car, do you blame the designer and all the workers for making that car? What if the car did not have a mechanical failure and the driver still has an accident and gets killed, who do you blame?
We are in a world in which time and chance happens to everyone. We can say God is responsible for allowing time and chance. Would you want it any other way.? You retaliate at being given instruction which has come from God and think you do not have to live by rules, so you want your freedom, yet you want God to stop every evil act, which men and women are capable of, and which you have the capability of doing (if you so choose).
You fail to appreciate God, who judges righteously, can save all those who have been wrongly killed. You do not want to believe that is possible. Everything you think God should do, God will possibly do, but not to your time-scale. God is dealing with consequences of men's evil and when Judgement Day comes, then the righteous have nothing to fear.


It takes a lot more then the ability to write to be considered mature. Children in 2nd and 3rd grade begin to learn how to write stories, but they are far from considered mature. I agree. However, you are making assumptions about the characters used by God of whom you know nothing about. I expect the prophets of God could have been far more intelligent than you and me. Their intelligence is not to be measured against the knowledge we have today. You cannot compare the prophets of God to that of young children. Take the example of baptism. Baptism is to be done by those who are of adult age whereby they are able to understand what they are doing and why they are doing it. It is done by people who take responsibility for their own life and responsibility to follow the instruction of the Creator. I think that you are still in the childhood stage of understanding the God of the Bible. I say that because you make statements that show you do not understand how God is the Righteous Judge. That is why you do not see the actions of God as moral (by human standards) and you now attempt to justify your attack on God. The word of God is a warts and all account of men's activities, even those of God's chosen people; Israel. God takes responsibility for his Creation, but as for man having freewill, man has to accept blame for the results of the freewill he exercises. Hence, I shall continue to say, you have to blame man first. Do you ever balance the goodness of God against the severity of God?


Again, if the Biblegod were real then he most certainly would be held accountable for what Moses did, because god was the one who required something of Moses that he was unable to accomplish. When you believed in God and the kingdom of God, did you think Moses would not be in the Kingdom of God? Moses was not perfect and Moses had to bear the responsibility for his mistakes. Moses did not complain to God for what was Moses's mistake. Moses was denied entry into the Promised Land because of his mistake, but seeing Moses was coming to the end of his natural life, Moses would not have lived for long, had he entered the land. Moses will live for eternity in the promised land in the time of the Kingdom of God.


I am not blaming god for my birth or my faults, since I don't believe in his existence. I am fully responsible for my own actions and whatever purpose and meaning my life has. Whatever I make of my life is because of my efforts and the efforts of others, it has nothing to do with some supernatural deity. I know you do not believe in the existence of God, but allowing for the very small possibility God does exist, by what you say, you have to blame God. You are saying that God is to blame because he has made everything and God is the Creator of life. That life has resulted in your birth, therefore you have to blame God for all your actions. If you replace God by the term Evolution, then you are blaming Evolution for everything.

Now you are saying you accept responsibility for your actions, and therefore you take the blame, so why do you think Moses was not to blame? Why do you shift the blame for everything onto God? Given that man is to blame, what then do you expect God to do? Should God do nothing, or should God deal with it? God can be seen to be dealing with the consequence of men's actions, however, God is handling it his way and not according to how you think he should.


I am amazed when I hear people thanking god, when a doctor saves a persons life, but when a person dies at the hands of a doctor they blame the doctor.Since we are told that God is the giver of life and can be the taker of life, then we have to get the situation like the one you cite into proper perspective. There is nothing wrong for giving God the praise for all the good that happens in our lives, even though those good things happen by time and chance. For the same reason, we should not blame God for the tragedies in our life. If you had watched the series on exposition of the Book of Job which I recommended to you, you would understand this when the speaker talked about our happiness changing. We wrongly attach what happens in our lives to God, instead of relating situations to our own state of happiness. When good things happen in our lives, we are happy. When bad things happen in our lives or the lives of others, we lose our happiness. We wrongly attach our state of happiness to God. We should not think that God should do everything according to what makes us happy. In times of good, we think God exists and in times of great tragedy, people will say; "there is no God". According to our state of happiness, God would be winking in and out of existence. This is not how it is, and that is why we have to get this into proper perspective.

Once a person is in 'The Will of God', it does not matter what befalls them in their life, because when they are saved and are in the kingdom of God, that more than makes up for the suffering or brevity of this life. This offer of eternal life is the goodness of God you fail to appreciate. Of course, we shall go around in circles discussing this point, because you will say; what is the evidence for that? I will say; we have the evidence of the resurrection etc. etc. Even though I have the full assurance by all the evidence that we have on record, personal eternal life remains a matter of faith. That is what God requires us to have; faith in Him. Eternal life has to be a matter of faith until that faith becomes reality.

All the best
David

Rose
01-18-2014, 12:47 PM
Hi Rose:

Why do you say:

But you said earlier:...

So, maybe I confused your statements but it seems as if you do think god exists and Jesus might be a real person but then you just do not believe in IHVH the "biblegod"....

Please explain....

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hi Mystykal,

As I explained on the other thread, the confusion comes from your quoting from a post I wrote back in August of 2009, when I was still a Christian.

Take care,
Rose

Gambini
01-18-2014, 01:13 PM
Greetings Mister President and CEO of the bible wheel corporation :yo:

"The holographs are found in a very limited number of verses, only a few dozen or so. Therefore, they give no support to your assertion that "Every book in the bible was originally inspired in its totality."

The SIZE of the holographs have no bearing on whether or not what is ENTAILED in their open writings is true. Genesis 1:1-5 AND John 1:1-5 CLEARLY state that God exists, created the universe AND that he revealed himself in the person of JESUS. Furthermore, I didn't mean that the holographs on their own demonstrated that all 66 books were divinely inspired. I think it's pretty obvious I didn't mean that. What demonstrates that EVERY SINGLE BOOK IN THE BIBLE (all 66) is divinely inspired is the large scale structure of the bible (the "bible wheel"), which runs through ALL 66 books AND the correlation between the 66 chapters of Isaiah with the 66 books of the bible. Hence, we already have clear evidence of a supernatural origin for THE ENTIRE MESSAGE of Genesis 1:1-5 with John 1:1-5 (thereby confirming its message) AND for EVERY SINGLE BOOK IN THE BIBLE. Now if it can be shown that there are "illogical" or "immoral" elements WITHIN those 66 books, then obviously those elements would be the result of fallible men tampering with the original writings.

"Neither the Bible Wheel nor the Isaiah-Bible Correlation are nearly as "perfect" as would be expected if they were designed by an omniscient being"

That's a subjective argument. If there is evidence of a supernatural hand behind the biblical text, which there clearly is, then THAT confirms its supernatural origin. Further, even if the evidence was "imperfect" (whatever that means), that shouldn't be a problem for you because you already believe at the very least that much of the bible is already "imperfect" anyways (in fact, you believe much of it is vile). So just as the writings you judge to be "illogical" or "immoral" WITHIN the 66 books would be the result of fallible men tampering with the original text, any "imperfection" in the supernatural evidence of the text would ALSO be the result of fallible men tampering with the original text.

"The fact that Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5 (the source of the Creation Holograph) "affirm that God exists" does not mean that your particular kind of God, or any God for that matter, actually exists"

HUH??? You lost me here ... What part of "In the beginning GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH" isn't clear to you??? What part of "ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM (JESUS) AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE THAT WAS MADE"??? And btw, we know from Polycarp, the STUDENT of JOHN (John being a direct student of Jesus himself), that John wrote this gospel.

"Genesis is based on erroneous Ancient Near East cosmological mythology commonly believed by ignorant people 3000 years ago"

This is a smokescreen. We've already GRANTED that anything within the divinely inspired 66 books of the bible that can be shown to be "illogical" or "immoral" would obviously be the result of fallible men tampering with the original text. Nothing in Genesis 1:1-5 OR John 1:1-5 is "illogical" or "immoral". In fact, it's PURE TRUTH that is backed up by the creation holograph (not to mention the overwhelming evidence from genetics, the breastplate of the high priest and the "star of Israel" pattern ALL linking back to Genesis 1:1).

"Your "proof" that the evil in the world must have come from some source other than God denies that God is the source of all"

No, it doesn't at all actually. Of course God is the source of all. But he's not the source of your freely made decisions. And don't bother running to the bible to try and find some passage that you think contradicts the idea that we have free will because I would just refer you back to the criteria I already put forth (ANYTHING within the divinely inspired 66 books that can be SHOWN to be "illogical" or "immoral" would obviously be the result of fallible men tampering with the original text). It is ILLOGICAL to deny we have free will (the ability to freely make choices). It negates reason itself because in order to be able to reason, you have to be able to CHOOSE between a correct proposition and an incorrect proposition. So if we have free will, then obviously God isn't the source of your freely made decisions. He may FOREKNOW them, but they are YOUR freely made decisions nevertheless.

"If God is omniscient and he intentionally created the world in such a way that it would certainly exist in its present state, then we must conclude he desired it to be in its present state"

I don't deny that God, being omniscient (the creator of TIME, space, matter and energy obviously has all knowledge of all events IN past, present and future time), INTENTIONALLY allowed our fallen world to be actualized through the FREELY MADE DECISIONS of sentient beings (eventually resulting in a greater good). I'm saying God didn't HIMSELF directly create the world in a fallen state. See the difference? And even if he DID, that would only mean the biblical God intentionally created a fallen world. You don't see a problem there??? You would be arguing the biblical God EXISTS! In that case, you'd essentially be saying God doesn't allow ANY interference with his plans (even though THE ENTIRE BIBLE CLAIMS OTHERWISE and the logical necessity of free will being a reality militates against that idea as well) and he inspired the "illogical" and "immoral" elements you say are found within the divinely inspired 66 books. Isn't it OBVIOUS that any such elements within the 66 books would be examples of fallible men tampering with the original text???

"What is a "No God of the Gaps fallacy" supposed to mean? Is it the "fallacy" of refusing to accept the fallacy that our ignorance implies God did it"

No, it's the fallacy that ignorance implies "IT DUN DONE ITSELF" (or it must have some unknown naturalistic explanation that hasn't been found yet). And in this case it's even worse because we KNOW the large scale structure of the bible could never have been formed outside of a supernatural mind. And it's only logical to believe that this supernatural mind is the very one that is openly proclaimed THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BIBLE.

"She did not say that no evidence would be sufficient. She said the existing evidence is not sufficient"

Anybody can say that. That's why I brought up the fact that there are actually MORE ppl who deny something that is staring them in the face 24/7 (the external world) than there are who reject the reality of a God. The idea that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a joke because extraordinary evidence is SUBJECTIVE. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who understands the evidence behind the creation holograph, the bible wheel, the biblical correlation with the 66 chapters of Isaiah (and the overwhelming evidence from genetics, the breastplate of the high priest and the "star of Israel" pattern ALL linking back to Genesis 1:1) and refuses to acknowledge that it is clear evidence backing up the supernatural claims of the bible (or the original writings AT THE VERY LEAST) is simply in denial. I'm just being honest.

"And speaking of folks who reject truth REGARDLESS of evidence, that describes the essential character of religious believers.

Really??? :p You do know that according to the definition of atheism you subscribe to (the "lack of belief" bit), atheists are just as religious as theists, right? That would make hundreds of millions of Buddhists and hundreds of millions Chinese spiritists ATHEISTS (not to mention Satanists and Raelians)! On top of that, there are millions of theists who AREN'T religious. So religion isn't exclusive to theism or atheism either way ...

Btw, studies also show that Christians who are MORE religiously devoted are LESS likely to believe in a whole slew of paranormal phenomenon (stuff like magic crystals, astrology, alien abductions, bigfoot, ghosts and all that good stuff). Hence, ppl who are NOT religious are MORE likely to believe in these things than religiously devout Christians. Pretty ironic, no?

Richard, on a side note ... I noticed on page 399 of your book you hinted at a future book on the subject of the Hebrew alphabet. Is that still in the works or did you ditch that? I was just curious.

SUPER SHALOMness :pray:

BINI

Rose
01-18-2014, 03:39 PM
Hello Rose
In the sense that God is the Creator, then God has to take ultimate responsibility for the way things have been set up. If a car goes out of control due to a mechanical failure and kills the driver of the car, do you blame the designer and all the workers for making that car? What if the car did not have a mechanical failure and the driver still has an accident and gets killed, who do you blame?
We are in a world in which time and chance happens to everyone. We can say God is responsible for allowing time and chance. Would you want it any other way.? You retaliate at being given instruction which has come from God and think you do not have to live by rules, so you want your freedom, yet you want God to stop every evil act, which men and women are capable of, and which you have the capability of doing (if you so choose).

You fail to appreciate God, who judges righteously, can save all those who have been wrongly killed. You do not want to believe that is possible. Everything you think God should do, God will possibly do, but not to your time-scale. God is dealing with consequences of men's evil and when Judgement Day comes, then the righteous have nothing to fear.

Hi David,

What we are talking about is interpretation, translation and copying errors in the Bible. Back before the printing press and copying machines there was no way a original document could be copied without introducing errors, that in and of itself is a huge design flaw. No intelligent person would ever expect a written document to remain unaltered, when the only way it could be propagated was by people translating it and copying it.

There is no way that anyone who has read the Bible can honestly say that its god judges righteously. The Bible is filled with bias, inequality and injustice sanctioned and decreed by its god.


I agree. However, you are making assumptions about the characters used by God of whom you know nothing about. I expect the prophets of God could have been far more intelligent than you and me. Their intelligence is not to be measured against the knowledge we have today. You cannot compare the prophets of God to that of young children. Take the example of baptism. Baptism is to be done by those who are of adult age whereby they are able to understand what they are doing and why they are doing it. It is done by people who take responsibility for their own life and responsibility to follow the instruction of the Creator. I think that you are still in the childhood stage of understanding the God of the Bible. I say that because you make statements that show you do not understand how God is the Righteous Judge. That is why you do not see the actions of God as moral (by human standards) and you now attempt to justify your attack on God. The word of God is a warts and all account of men's activities, even those of God's chosen people; Israel. God takes responsibility for his Creation, but as for man having freewill, man has to accept blame for the results of the freewill he exercises. Hence, I shall continue to say, you have to blame man first. Do you ever balance the goodness of God against the severity of God?

I understand perfectly well the words written in the Bible, and those words clearly show that its god holds the same biased and unjust opinions as the men of the time period who wrote the Bible. Men of that time period viewed women as property and thought it was okay to own slaves, consequently the Biblegod held that very same view ... how convenient.




I know you do not believe in the existence of God, but allowing for the very small possibility God does exist, by what you say, you have to blame God. You are saying that God is to blame because he has made everything and God is the Creator of life. That life has resulted in your birth, therefore you have to blame God for all your actions. If you replace God by the term Evolution, then you are blaming Evolution for everything.

Now you are saying you accept responsibility for your actions, and therefore you take the blame, so why do you think Moses was not to blame? Why do you shift the blame for everything onto God? Given that man is to blame, what then do you expect God to do? Should God do nothing, or should God deal with it? God can be seen to be dealing with the consequence of men's actions, however, God is handling it his way and not according to how you think he should.

The reason I take responsibility for my own actions is because I DO NOT believe there is a god who created everything or knows the beginning from the end. IF one believes in a creator god as you do, then that creator god would be responsible and accountable for things that are in his power to change. Take for instance a person that is born with a genetic defect that makes them psychotic and they kill someone, if your god is real and he could have prevented the genetic defect in the first place then he is responsible for that persons actions.


Since we are told that God is the giver of life and can be the taker of life, then we have to get the situation like the one you cite into proper perspective. There is nothing wrong for giving God the praise for all the good that happens in our lives, even though those good things happen by time and chance. For the same reason, we should not blame God for the tragedies in our life. If you had watched the series on exposition of the Book of Job which I recommended to you, you would understand this when the speaker talked about our happiness changing. We wrongly attach what happens in our lives to God, instead of relating situations to our own state of happiness. When good things happen in our lives, we are happy. When bad things happen in our lives or the lives of others, we lose our happiness. We wrongly attach our state of happiness to God. We should not think that God should do everything according to what makes us happy. In times of good, we think God exists and in times of great tragedy, people will say; "there is no God". According to our state of happiness, God would be winking in and out of existence. This is not how it is, and that is why we have to get this into proper perspective.

I'm trying to make sense of what you just said ... :confused: Let's see, if through my hard work I accomplish something, I should give god the praise, but if on the other hand I ask god to heal my sick child and nothing happens I should NOT blame god for that.


Once a person is in 'The Will of God', it does not matter what befalls them in their life, because when they are saved and are in the kingdom of God, that more than makes up for the suffering or brevity of this life. This offer of eternal life is the goodness of God you fail to appreciate. Of course, we shall go around in circles discussing this point, because you will say; what is the evidence for that? I will say; we have the evidence of the resurrection etc. etc. Even though I have the full assurance by all the evidence that we have on record, personal eternal life remains a matter of faith. That is what God requires us to have; faith in Him. Eternal life has to be a matter of faith until that faith becomes reality.

All the best
David

I don't know how you can make the claim that there is evidence for the resurrection. Words written down in a book is not considered evidence.

Take care,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
01-19-2014, 01:21 AM
I agree Richard that the Bible contains evidence of supernatural activity whilst also showing evidence of human mindset.

The issue revolves around how God interacts with man. The Bible says that we are temples of the Holy Ghost, which means that God channels himself through us.

If we are imperfect vessels or wilfully resistant vessels, then the message that comes through is going to be distorted.

However, the distortions due to any one vessel will generally be ironed out when one looks at many separate vessels together.

We know that the Bible was written by 40 authors (40 witnesses). Yes, on many points they might differ, but when all are combined, we perceive an overall pattern - the BibleWheel for example. Often witness is diffused amongst many - that's why it is only when we combine all 4 gospels that we find there were 40 miracles and 40 parables that witnessed to the people in Jesus' generation.

Whatsmore, some vessels may have been more perfect than others. Prophets more than kings, Messiahs more than prophets.

So the issue really does resolve around how God interacts with man - what the method of interaction is.


Best advice for discerning the word of God would be -

1. Ask the audience : What is the common pattern that appears over many authors
2. Ask the expert : What is the message from the good vessels
3. Ask yourself : Maybe that is why it is so important to be a clear vessel yourself rather than relying on other people to be.

Anyway, it is amusing to ask Richard and Rose what they would do if it were proved that the God of the Bible was their Creator. If it were absolutely known to be true, would they decide to follow Him despite their moral objections.

Mystykal
01-19-2014, 03:49 AM
Hi Mystykal,

As I explained on the other thread, the confusion comes from your quoting from a post I wrote back in August of 2009, when I was still a Christian.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:
I see! Yes, that would make a difference... Thanks for the update!

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
01-19-2014, 10:33 AM
Anyway, it is amusing to ask Richard and Rose what they would do if it were proved that the God of the Bible was their Creator. If it were absolutely known to be true, would they decide to follow Him despite their moral objections.

Hi Craig,

Very good question. :thumb:

If the Biblegod could be proved with evidence to be the creator of life, in the same manner as the evidence of science convinced me to reject the false claims of the Bible, then of course I would believe in his existence. However, I still would have the same objections to all the injustice, bias and immorality decreed by the Biblegod.

My question for you is this: you said that evidence has been found in the genetic code that proves intelligent design, but does not point to any religion. If that is the case, then why have you chosen to believe that the Biblegod is that intelligent designer, when many of the Biblical claims have been proven wrong?

Take care,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
01-19-2014, 10:36 AM
Good morning Sir Gambini Sir! :tea:

Greetings Mister President and CEO of the bible wheel corporation :yo:

"The holographs are found in a very limited number of verses, only a few dozen or so. Therefore, they give no support to your assertion that "Every book in the bible was originally inspired in its totality."

The SIZE of the holographs have no bearing on whether or not what is ENTAILED in their open writings is true. Genesis 1:1-5 AND John 1:1-5 CLEARLY state that God exists, created the universe AND that he revealed himself in the person of JESUS. Furthermore, I didn't mean that the holographs on their own demonstrated that all 66 books were divinely inspired. I think it's pretty obvious I didn't mean that. What demonstrates that EVERY SINGLE BOOK IN THE BIBLE (all 66) is divinely inspired is the large scale structure of the bible (the "bible wheel"), which runs through ALL 66 books AND the correlation between the 66 chapters of Isaiah with the 66 books of the bible. Hence, we already have clear evidence of a supernatural origin for THE ENTIRE MESSAGE of Genesis 1:1-5 with John 1:1-5 (thereby confirming its message) AND for EVERY SINGLE BOOK IN THE BIBLE. Now if it can be shown that there are "illogical" or "immoral" elements WITHIN those 66 books, then obviously those elements would be the result of fallible men tampering with the original writings.

The message entailed by Genesis 1 is obviously false if read in anything like a literal sense because it entails the false mythological cosmology common in the Ancient Near East three thousand years ago. It simply is not true to say that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". We don't even know what those words mean. When I was a Christian, I liked to think that "heaven and earth" was just a synonym for the Universe. But that's not justified at all because it is eisogesis - reading my own modern understanding into an ancient text. And worse, it is absurd because there is no "raqiya" (dome) holding up the waters above, and the planet earth is not properly contrasted with "heaven" if heaven is taken to mean "the universe" and it was not formed "in the beginning" but rather 9 billion years later, etc.

So how should we deal with the MESSAGE of Genesis 1? Do we have to interpret it literally? If so, then it is false. If not, then the sky's the limit, and each interpreter can make up their own interpretation. Case in point: You appear to hold the traditional fundamentalist evangelical interpretation of the Bible that says people must "believe in Jesus to be saved" and that "Jesus is God" and similar things (like God created each "kind" of animal?), etc. Other Christians, who also hold the Bible is inspired, come to very different conclusions, such as Christian Universalism which believes that "God wills that all be saved" and that Christ is the savior of all men, etc. Even the definition of "God" as used in Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5 could be interpreted as Universal Mind as opposed to the horrible theistic style God who commands genocide and commends sexism.

So what is the message actually entailed in Genesis 1? That's anyone's guess. To get any traction out of those verses, you will have to tie them together with the general image of God presented in the 66 books as a whole. But that image of God is an impossibility because the Bible teaches sexism from Genesis to Revelation, and that sexism is inextricably entwined with the image of God as a Trinity of Males that establish a male hierarchy of rules with women at the bottom. This immoral teaching, like the immoral commands of genocide, cannot be dismissed as a later addition. All the primary errors, absurdities, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God were in the original autographs. Your attempt to avoid these problems by asserting they were added later is simply not supported by the facts.



"Neither the Bible Wheel nor the Isaiah-Bible Correlation are nearly as "perfect" as would be expected if they were designed by an omniscient being"

That's a subjective argument. If there is evidence of a supernatural hand behind the biblical text, which there clearly is, then THAT confirms its supernatural origin. Further, even if the evidence was "imperfect" (whatever that means), that shouldn't be a problem for you because you already believe at the very least that much of the bible is already "imperfect" anyways (in fact, you believe much of it is vile). So just as the writings you judge to be "illogical" or "immoral" WITHIN the 66 books would be the result of fallible men tampering with the original text, any "imperfection" in the supernatural evidence of the text would ALSO be the result of fallible men tampering with the original text.

No, it is not a subjective argument. If it were, then that would imply that all judgments about any design in the Bible - good or bad - would be subjective and your entire argument would fail. Your defense reminds me of Christians who try to defend God immoral actions by saying we can't judge anything God does. OK - if we can't judge God, then we can't judge that he is good either! This reveals the typical incoherence of Christian thought.

By "imperfect" I meant that the patterns we do find are fragmentary. Bit's and pieces scattered here and there. There is an overall coherence, but the patterns are not consistent. Some spokes have much stronger correlations than others. If God really designed the Bible, he could easily have put Alphabetic Keylinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/Alphabetic_Structure.php) on every spoke instead of just a few. With just a flick of his Divine Omnipotence, he could have made the pattern of the Bible Wheel perfect, but he chose to leaven only a fragmentary hint of a perfect pattern. Why??? If he didn't want to give proof, why did he create it at all?



"The fact that Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5 (the source of the Creation Holograph) "affirm that God exists" does not mean that your particular kind of God, or any God for that matter, actually exists"

HUH??? You lost me here ... What part of "In the beginning GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH" isn't clear to you??? What part of "ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM (JESUS) AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE THAT WAS MADE"??? And btw, we know from Polycarp, the STUDENT of JOHN (John being a direct student of Jesus himself), that John wrote this gospel.

As discussed above, in as much as Genesis 1:1 is "clear" it is false. It must be taken to mean something other than what it clearly says. But that opens the door to ten thousand arbitrary interpretations for folks to invent.

Who was the "him"? The LOGOS of pre-christian Greek philosophy! You should do a little research on this fact. It refers to an abstract principle of reason that was "begotten" by the God of the Greek philosophers!



"Genesis is based on erroneous Ancient Near East cosmological mythology commonly believed by ignorant people 3000 years ago"

This is a smokescreen. We've already GRANTED that anything within the divinely inspired 66 books of the bible that can be shown to be "illogical" or "immoral" would obviously be the result of fallible men tampering with the original text. Nothing in Genesis 1:1-5 OR John 1:1-5 is "illogical" or "immoral". In fact, it's PURE TRUTH that is backed up by the creation holograph (not to mention the overwhelming evidence from genetics, the breastplate of the high priest and the "star of Israel" pattern ALL linking back to Genesis 1:1).

You are the one creating a smokescreen to avoid the undeniable fact that Genesis 1 is based on the false mythological cosmology of the ANE.

If you want to assert that Genesis 1 is "PURE TRUTH" then you need to explicitly state what that truth really says. Is there a solid dome holding up the waters that are above? Of course not. Therefore, Genesis 1 is not pure truth. This exemplifies the primary error of your approach. You frequently assert things that do not follow from the evidence. This makes it impossible for me to agree, and so we keep going in circles where you make false assertions and I correct them. It would be must better if you would put in the effort to avoid asserting things that are not supported by the evidence. The idea is simple. You start out by saying something you know is true and which all rational and informed people (such as myself) must agree with. You then state the next fact and so build your case. You are almost doing this, but you are still in the habit of jumping the rails and declaring grand conclusions that simply do not follow from the evidence.



"She did not say that no evidence would be sufficient. She said the existing evidence is not sufficient"

Anybody can say that. That's why I brought up the fact that there are actually MORE ppl who deny something that is staring them in the face 24/7 (the external world) than there are who reject the reality of a God. The idea that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a joke because extraordinary evidence is SUBJECTIVE. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who understands the evidence behind the creation holograph, the bible wheel, the biblical correlation with the 66 chapters of Isaiah (and the overwhelming evidence from genetics, the breastplate of the high priest and the "star of Israel" pattern ALL linking back to Genesis 1:1) and refuses to acknowledge that it is clear evidence backing up the supernatural claims of the bible (or the original writings AT THE VERY LEAST) is simply in denial. I'm just being honest.

Here's the problem - your judgments are demonstrably unreliable because of your cognitive bias. You have but one standard by which you accept or reject evidence: Whether or not it supports what you want to believe. You proved this in a most stunning way in our dispute about the diameter of the sun, which now has been established to be 865,373 +/- 80 miles. This is the best estimate we now have, and it coheres with the meta-study of all the estimates over the last 32 years which give the best estimate from all the measurements as 865,000 when rounded to three significant digits. I proved this here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5288-Value-of-Pi-in-Matthew&p=59577#post59577). Your claims were proven false and yet you insisted that you were "justified" to use the false value as long as there existed any old out of date websites that still use the number 864,000! Your argument was a travesty of justification of error. It demonstrated nothing but your willingness to piss on any truth that contradicts what you want to believe. You just don't seem to have a genuine love of truth at all. It seems the only thing you care about are you pet theories and "proofs" that you religious dogmas are "true" even as you reject all truth that contradicts your claims.



"And speaking of folks who reject truth REGARDLESS of evidence, that describes the essential character of religious believers.

Really??? :p You do know that according to the definition of atheism you subscribe to (the "lack of belief" bit), atheists are just as religious as theists, right? That would make hundreds of millions of Buddhists and hundreds of millions Chinese spiritists ATHEISTS (not to mention Satanists and Raelians)! On top of that, there are millions of theists who AREN'T religious. So religion isn't exclusive to theism or atheism either way ...

Your assertion that "atheists are just as religious as theists" is absurd. My reasoned rejection of Allah is not equivalent to a believers blind faith in Allah. I have no idea what you think you are talking about.

My point was that religious believers tend to believe things without evidence since that is the essence of their religion. This makes them exceedingly gullible and prone to cognitive biases which lead to gross delusions, such as the idea that "God is trustworthy" when in fact everyone knows that God cannot actually be trusted to do anything for anyone in any situation. This is the fundamental delusion of religion.



Richard, on a side note ... I noticed on page 399 of your book you hinted at a future book on the subject of the Hebrew alphabet. Is that still in the works or did you ditch that? I was just curious.

Yeah, I ditched that idea. It doesn't hold much interest any more. If I were to write anything I think it would be on the holographs because they are the most difficult design in the Bible to explain. The Bible Wheel could potentially be explained by an unconscious or semi-conscious scribal selection process. I don't see how that could work with the holographs. It is possible they are just a figment of my cognitive bias but that doesn't seem likely since they still stand even though I have rejected the Bible. But I must seriously consider the possibility of cognitive bias because I know that it skewed my vision when I was a Christian despite my best efforts to avoid it. That's the only way I was able to believe the bible was from God even though it contained so much crap that was obviously not from God. So given that I was subject to cognitive bias when I discovered the holographs, I need to really examine them in the harsh light of objective skepticism and see if they stand.




SUPER SHALOMness :pray:

BINI
And to you.

Richard Amiel McGough
01-19-2014, 10:43 AM
Anyway, it is amusing to ask Richard and Rose what they would do if it were proved that the God of the Bible was their Creator. If it were absolutely known to be true, would they decide to follow Him despite their moral objections.
Hey there Craig,

I think that is a very interesting question. Presumably, anything that "proved that the God of the Bible was their Creator" would also include an explanation of what we are supposed to believe about that God. Merely saying the "God of the Bible" is literally meaningless because the descriptions of God in the Bible are logically incoherent and it is literally impossible to "believe" something that is logically incoherent.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

rdelmonico
01-20-2014, 03:36 AM
Logic can not be used to prove or disprove God.
What we have are assumptions and logic is used to justify those assumptions.
If God exist as he is described in the Bible, then certainly He is capable of preserving His Word.
Are we moving towards understanding or stumbling around in the dark?
Take for instance the killing of everyone, men women and children, of a certain tribe in Canaan.
This may have something to do with preserving the seed of the woman.
What do we really know about this?
Why doesn't the Bible tell us plainly?
Is it our fault if we don't understand?

duxrow
01-20-2014, 06:31 AM
PERUSAL: From the tiniest matter (Higgs Boson?) to the mightiest star, we struggle to learn who we are..
From the depths of the sea to the tallest of trees, we peruse after heaven's Czar.
Wherever we turn, for new things to learn, we find there's still some in the tank..
We scratch where it itches, and discover more riches, to take with us to the bank.

"Go to, let US go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech". Gen 11:7 :lol:

David M
01-20-2014, 08:19 AM
Hey there Craig,

I think that is a very interesting question. Presumably, anything that "proved that the God of the Bible was their Creator" would also include an explanation of what we are supposed to believe about that God. Merely saying the "God of the Bible" is literally meaningless because the descriptions of God in the Bible are logically incoherent and it is literally impossible to "believe" something that is logically incoherent.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard
Hello Richard
You have not abandoned the possibility (all be it a small probability) that a god exists and is responsible for the first "simple" cell. If that possible God is found to be the only answer, you have a greater problem, in that you know absolutely nothing about this god except that it created the first cell. To get to the first cell, that is probably explained by saying this god must have made the cell from existing atoms. Could this same god have created the atoms? Since you know absolutely nothing about this low-probability god, you do not want to speculate, but that is the only course left open. This low probability god of yours has left nothing on record by which to be known. At least, the God I see as responsible for the first living cell, has left something on record for us. The underlying message in the record that has been given, is a very simple message. The message has been complicated by man because he is in the proverbial wood and cannot see the wood for the trees. Maybe once we stand back and see the simplicity of the Bible (the wood) when we know what each story (tree) has to show us, then we see the detail that is in the overall wood.

The only enemy of God is man. The enemy has nothing to do with God's Angels. The enemy resides in man; the enemy is man's "carnal mind". The carnal mind is a mind set on pleasing self. That is the struggle that goes onside in everyone who wants to please God. It is not a struggle for anyone who does not want to please God. It was the struggle that went on inside Jesus; hence the temptations of Jesus to do his own will and gratify his own flesh. It is not a struggle God can experience, since God is not made of flesh and blood, but God made flesh and blood.

There are two sides to this story and it depends on which side we want to be.


Righteous
Unrighteous


follow God's instruction
rebel against instruction


the seed of the woman]
the seed of the serpent/devil/satan


the spiritual mind
the carnal mind


the Sons of God
the Daughters of Men


a prisoner of Christ
a prisoner of Satan


to be the "new" man
to be the "old" man



not to be of this world
to be of this world


to come out of Babylon
to stay in Babylon


the go into the marriage feast
to be left at the door


to be a faithful servant
to be a sluggard


Eternal Life
Eternal death


In the Kingdom of God
Excluded from the Kingdom of God





More can be added to the table. I have heard it said; we are what we watch. I have also heard it said; we become or get the product of the mind.

Jesus put it another way when he said (Matt 15:11); Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
. What comes out of the mouth is the product of the mind. Hence the "carnal mind" defiles the man. This is why Jesus did not have the "carnal mind". Paul exhorts us to have the mind of Christ (Phil 2:5)

I know which side I am trying to stay on.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough
01-20-2014, 09:49 AM
Hello Richard
You have not abandoned the possibility (all be it a small probability) that a god exists and is responsible for the first "simple" cell. If that possible God is found to be the only answer, you have a greater problem, in that you know absolutely nothing about this god except that it created the first cell. To get to the first cell, that is probably explained by saying this god must have made the cell from existing atoms. Could this same god have created the atoms? Since you know absolutely nothing about this low-probability god, you do not want to speculate, but that is the only course left open. This low probability god of yours has left nothing on record by which to be known. At least, the God I see as responsible for the first living cell, has left something on record for us. The underlying message in the record that has been given, is a very simple message. The message has been complicated by man because he is in the proverbial wood and cannot see the wood for the trees. Maybe once we stand back and see the simplicity of the Bible (the wood) when we know what each story (tree) has to show us, then we see the detail that is in the overall wood.

Good morning David! :tea:

A Muslim would say that his god has left a record too. Merely saying that you have a record left by your god means absolutely nothing. And worse, the record you claim your god left indicates that your god is a moral monster who doesn't understand the most basic elements of reality, such as the fact that the earth was not made in six days, there is no dome holding up the waters that are "above", there was no Adam and Eve, no Flood of Noah, no Tower of Babel, etc. So what you really have is a book that is full of demonstrable falsehoods. In short, the "wood" of which you speak is full of holes. Any boat made with it would instantly sink.



The only enemy of God is man. The enemy has nothing to do with God's Angels. The enemy resides in man; the enemy is man's "carnal mind". The carnal mind is a mind set on pleasing self. That is the struggle that goes onside in everyone who wants to please God. It is not a struggle for anyone who does not want to please God. It was the struggle that went on inside Jesus; hence the temptations of Jesus to do his own will and gratify his own flesh. It is not a struggle God can experience, since God is not made of flesh and blood, but God made flesh and blood.

Excellent! If you are correct, then the vast majority of Christians throughout history have been wrong, and all rational people should reject their claims including their holy text, the Bible, that they have been using as the basis of their claims. This is why your claims seem to be self-defeating and incoherent. You take a book from a prominent world-wide religion and hijack it as if you alone had its "true" interpretation! I find that as outrageous as it is absurd. The truth simply cannot be constrained to the prison of your idiosyncratic forced interpretations and fringe doctrines. That's just not how reality works.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
01-20-2014, 09:59 AM
Logic can not be used to prove or disprove God.
What we have are assumptions and logic is used to justify those assumptions.
If God exist as he is described in the Bible, then certainly He is capable of preserving His Word.
Are we moving towards understanding or stumbling around in the dark?
Take for instance the killing of everyone, men women and children, of a certain tribe in Canaan.
This may have something to do with preserving the seed of the woman.
What do we really know about this?
Why doesn't the Bible tell us plainly?
Is it our fault if we don't understand?
Logic most certainly can be used to prove or disprove God. For example, if God exists as described in the Bible, then he is a moral monster who doesn't understand the most basic elements of reality, such as the fact that the earth was not made in six days, there is no dome holding up the waters that are "above", there was no Adam and Eve, no Flood of Noah, no Tower of Babel, etc. It is easy to use logic and facts to prove that the Bible is full of demonstrable falsehoods. It's really not that complicated.

As for the idea of "preserving his word" - a good argument can be made that he has "preserved" it by ensuring that many contradictory copies have been made, which SCHOLARS can analyse and so come to the "best guess" of what was in the original autographs. But the fundamentalist idea that he "preserved" his word in any literal sense, such as in the KJV, is blatantly absurd.

The various incidents of genocide that God command and/or participated in are not the only problems in the Bible. For example, the Bible is sexist from beginning to end. I find that very problematic because sexism is immoral, and has caused overwhelming suffering over the span of thousands of years. It didn't originate in the Bible, but the Bible did accentuate the problem.

sylvius
01-20-2014, 11:48 AM
Logic most certainly can be used to prove or disprove God. For example, if God exists as described in the Bible, then he is a moral monster who doesn't understand the most basic elements of reality, such as the fact that the earth was not made in six days, there is no dome holding up the waters that are "above", there was no Adam and Eve, no Flood of Noah, no Tower of Babel, etc. It is easy to use logic and facts to prove that the Bible is full of demonstrable falsehoods. It's really not that complicated. But who says that the bible has to be taken literal?

Gambini
01-20-2014, 01:45 PM
Greetings O RAMaggedon :D

"The message entailed by Genesis 1 is obviously false if read in anything like a literal sense because it entails the false mythological cosmology common in the Ancient Near East three thousand years ago"

We're not talking about the entire chapter of Genesis 1. We're dealing SPECIFICALLY with the passages in the divinely inspired creation holograph (Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5). Even if your claim about the "firmament" were true, the creation of the "firmament" doesn't come into the picture until verse six. So IT'S NOT FOUND IN THE HOLOGRAPH.

"It simply is not true to say that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". We don't even know what those words mean"

Of course we do. "In the beginning" obviously means there was a beginning (which is backed up by science). "God" means there IS a God. "Created the heavens and the earth" clearly means this God created EVERYTHING WE SEE.

"There is no "raqiya" (dome) holding up the waters above"

You did it again ... You're not in the specific passages entailed in the creation holograph (Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5).

"The planet earth is not properly contrasted with "heaven" if heaven is taken to mean "the universe" and it was not formed "in the beginning" but rather 9 billion years later, etc"

The physical matter of the earth (and the entire universe) was created in the beginning. So the statement that the heavens and the earth (which OBVIOUSLY is referring to EVERYTHING WE SEE) was created at the beginning is literally true. That's why the creation holograph also states "ALL THINGS were made by HIM and without HIM was not ANY THING made that was made".

"The primary errors, absurdities, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God were in the original autographs"

That's impossible for you to know because WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTOGRAPHS. Granted, the evidence for the preservation of the biblical autographs is better than any other ancient text BUT if it can be shown that there are "illogical" or "immoral" elements within the 66 books WHILE AT THE SAME TIME demonstrating supernatural evidence, then that clearly demonstrates the autographs WERE originally tampered with REGARDLESS of how good the evidence for preservation is.

"Your defense reminds me of Christians who try to defend God's immoral actions by saying we can't judge anything God does"

I don't entirely agree with that but there is some truth to that in the sense that we can't know all the variables of what any particular action or event would cause (whereas God does). So in that sense, we're not in the position to judge any action that God pursues.

"If we can't judge God, then we can't judge that he is good either"

Sure we can because Christianity DEFINES good based on God himself. So God NECESSARILY does good because goodness reflects his very nature. And since we can't know all the variables of what any particular action or event can lead to (whether in the near future or thousands of years from now), we're not justified in condemning any action that God pursues.

"By "imperfect" I meant that the patterns we do find are fragmentary"

Great! That fits PERFECTLY with the God of nature itself. I mean, God doesn't just slap us upside the head and say "Hey, I'm right here". He gives us a limited amount of evidence, such that those who don't want to acknowledge God can use this as an excuse to reject him. In other words, the limited nature of the evidence serves as a mechanism that brings out the true nature and essence of the individual. So it is with the bible itself ... The supernatural evidence is there but it's not going to jump out and slap you in the face. The evidence is limited (or "fragmentary"). HOWEVER ...

Just as the supernatural evidence for the bible is overwhelming (the creation holograph, the corresponding genetic evidence, the amazing patterns in the breastplate of the highpriest, the amazing patterns in the "Star of Israel", the correlation of the 66 chapters of Isaiah with the 66 biblical books and the large scale structure of the bible wheel), so the evidence for God from nature itself is overwhelming (the creation ex nihilo of the universe, the incomprehensibly finetuned values of the universe, the origin of life from non-life, the mind-boggling level of optimization in the very amino acids of life, the abstract mathematical order found in the very amino acids of life, the origin of subjective consciousness from unconscious matter and the impossibility of free will arising from chemical necessity). BUT ... This overwhelming evidence is tailored in such a way that it needs to be sought out. Hence, those who diligently seek him (and are WILLING to acknowledge him) will find him. For those who are UNWILLING, then no amount of evidence will shake them. These are the ones who grab on to the mechanism intentionally designed by God that brings out their true identify. These will look for any excuse to explain away the overwhelming evidence for the God of nature AND the supernatural evidence for the bible.

"Who was the "him"? The LOGOS of pre-christian Greek philosophy"

It's clear who the "him" was because THE ENTIRE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH referred to JESUS as the "LOGOS". I mean, you do realize that the Gospel of John is a CHRISTIAN TEXT, right??? And again, we know from Polycarp, the STUDENT of JOHN (John being a student of Jesus himself), that John wrote this Gospel. So CLEARLY the LOGOS is referring to JESUS. Hence, JESUS is THE CREATOR.

"You are the one creating a smokescreen to avoid the undeniable fact that Genesis 1 is based on the false mythological cosmology of the ANE"

You did it again! ... Your claims about the "firmament" don't apply here because THEY ARE NOT FOUND IN THE PASSAGES OF THE CREATION HOLOGRAPH (Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5).

"You insisted that you were "justified" to use the false value as long as there existed any old out of date websites that still uses the number 864,000"

That's not the only reason I said I was justified in using the estimated figure of 864,000 miles. The numerous numerical links from nature itself connecting the value of 864,000 to the sun AND the biblical links connecting that value to the sun leads me to believe that the estimated value of 864,000 (a value still used by secular sources) is slightly closer to the truth than 865,000. And the fact that the value of 864,000 agrees with all the studies by over 99% also makes it very likely to me that the numerical links from nature and the biblical links lend credence to the idea that the estimated value of 864,000 miles is closer to the true value. This has nothing to do with this post anyways. No need to discuss that here.

"Your assertion that "atheists are just as religious as theists" is absurd"

I have no idea why you think it's "absurd". It's actually a FACT ... You claim anyone who "lacks a belief" in a God is an atheist, right??? So BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, hundreds of millions of Buddhists and hundreds of millions of Chinese spiritists (not to mention Satanists and Raelians) are ATHEISTS, right??? Hence, atheists are just as religious (perhaps even MORE religious) than theists are. In fact, there are MORE atheists who are religious than there are atheists who are nonreligious.

"My point was that religious believers tend to believe things without evidence"

And my point was that studies show that religious ppl are LESS likely to believe in a whole slew of paranormal beliefs whereas nonreligious ppl are MORE likely to believe in them. So your "point" doesn't really mean much ...

Are most Christians a pack of dingbats? Sure. Just like most atheists are a pack of dingbats. Most ppl IN GENERAL are a pack of dingbats. It has nothing to do with their worldview. I mean, scientists tend to be very "evidence minded" ppl, no? Well, CHRISTIAN scientists are OVERREPRESENTED in the most ELITE group of scientists on earth whereas atheist scientists are UNDERREPRESENTED in the most ELITE group of scientists on earth ...

Who are THE most elite scientists on earth? Nobel prize winners, right? Well, self identified Christians make up about one third of scientists in general BUT make up 65% of Nobel prize winners of science (DOUBLE their population as scientists in general) WHEREAS self identified atheists make up about 40% of scientists in general BUT only make up 10% of Nobel prize winners of science. Are you familiar with this study? I believe it comes from Arizona State. They looked at all the Nobel prize winners of science in the 20th century and found that 65% self identified as Christians while only 10% self identified as either atheist or agnostic. Furthermore, virtually EVERY single field of scientific study was pioneered by CHRISTIAN scientists. Not bad for a bunch of ppl who tend to "believe things without evidence", huh? :p

"If I were to write anything I think it would be on the holographs because they are the most difficult design in the Bible to explain"

That would be an awesome idea :thumb:

"The Bible Wheel could potentially be explained by an unconscious or semi-conscious scribal selection process"

I don't see how that could possibly work. I think it's clear evidence of a supernatural mind behind the large scale structure of the 66 books. The links are too detailed, interconnected and complex to be the result of man (ESPECIALLY given the fact you believe its human authors were primitive).

SHALOMness :pray:

Mister BINI Berlinski (aka The Mystic Macaroni)

rdelmonico
01-20-2014, 03:42 PM
Logic most certainly can be used to prove or disprove God. For example, if God exists as described in the Bible, then he is a moral monster who doesn't understand the most basic elements of reality, such as the fact that the earth was not made in six days, there is no dome holding up the waters that are "above", there was no Adam and Eve, no Flood of Noah, no Tower of Babel, etc. It is easy to use logic and facts to prove that the Bible is full of demonstrable falsehoods. It's really not that complicated.

As for the idea of "preserving his word" - a good argument can be made that he has "preserved" it by ensuring that many contradictory copies have been made, which SCHOLARS can analyze and so come to the "best guess" of what was in the original autographs. But the fundamentalist idea that he "preserved" his word in any literal sense, such as in the KJV, is blatantly absurd.

The various incidents of genocide that God command and/or participated in are not the only problems in the Bible. For example, the Bible is sexist from beginning to end. I find that very problematic because sexism is immoral, and has caused overwhelming suffering over the span of thousands of years. It didn't originate in the Bible, but the Bible did accentuate the problem.

Logic can not be used to prove or disprove God.
There are a huge number of things that can not be proved or disproved least of all God.
You may be able to say "this makes more sense than that" but that is not proof.

If God exist as he is described in the Bible, then certainly He is capable of preserving His Word.
Notice the word "if". I am not claiming to know anything in this statement, and if he did exist it could only mean that we don't understand something.

You seem to feel like you've really got a handle on this thing, I don't think that is possible.

Why would someone as smart as Isaac Newton spend such a large portion of his life trying to figure this stuff out?
Are you telling me that he missed something so obvious, that it is laughable?

Richard Amiel McGough
01-20-2014, 03:53 PM
Logic can not be used to prove or disprove God.
There are a huge number of things that can not be proved or disproved least of all God.
That's your opinion, but it is demonstrably false, unless you are using the word "God" without giving it any definition. If you define it in any meaningful sense, then the definition would entail certain logical consequences that could be tested to see if they are true or false. If no logical consequences follow from your definition, then it would be empty of any real meaning.

rdelmonico
01-20-2014, 04:47 PM
That's your opinion, but it is demonstrably false, unless you are using the word "God" without giving it any definition. If you define it in any meaningful sense, then the definition would entail certain logical consequences that could be tested to see if they are true or false. If no logical consequences follow from your definition, then it would be empty of any real meaning.

Creator of time and space.
Some of the greastest minds have argued about the existence of a creator and I have not seen anything conclusive.
Can anyone prove the big bang?
The universe is winding down.
What wound it up?
The greatest mind on the planet couldn't tell you.
Are you an INTJ?

http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html

rdelmonico
01-20-2014, 05:08 PM
Logic most certainly can be used to prove or disprove God. For example, if God exists as described in the Bible, then he is a moral monster who doesn't understand the most basic elements of reality, such as the fact that the earth was not made in six days, there is no dome holding up the waters that are "above", there was no Adam and Eve, no Flood of Noah, no Tower of Babel, etc. It is easy to use logic and facts to prove that the Bible is full of demonstrable falsehoods. It's really not that complicated.

As for the idea of "preserving his word" - a good argument can be made that he has "preserved" it by ensuring that many contradictory copies have been made, which SCHOLARS can analyse and so come to the "best guess" of what was in the original autographs. But the fundamentalist idea that he "preserved" his word in any literal sense, such as in the KJV, is blatantly absurd.

The various incidents of genocide that God command and/or participated in are not the only problems in the Bible. For example, the Bible is sexist from beginning to end. I find that very problematic because sexism is immoral, and has caused overwhelming suffering over the span of thousands of years. It didn't originate in the Bible, but the Bible did accentuate the problem.


I wonder what percentage of the general population would consider the God of the Bible to be a moral monster?

David M
01-20-2014, 05:13 PM
Hello Richard

Good morning David! :tea:

A Muslim would say that his god has left a record too. Merely saying that you have a record left by your god means absolutely nothing. And worse, the record you claim your god left indicates that your god is a moral monster who doesn't understand the most basic elements of reality, such as the fact that the earth was not made in six days, there is no dome holding up the waters that are "above", there was no Adam and Eve, no Flood of Noah, no Tower of Babel, etc. So what you really have is a book that is full of demonstrable falsehoods. In short, the "wood" of which you speak is full of holes. Any boat made with it would instantly sink. You are so full of your own absurdities that you do not stop to think. Instead you rattle off the same spiel, which is unfounded and which I have challenged you on to expose your own absurdities. I now see you have said the exact same thing to rdelmonico in your next reply as shown in the quote following.


Logic most certainly can be used to prove or disprove God. For example, if God exists as described in the Bible, then he is a moral monster who doesn't understand the most basic elements of reality, such as the fact that the earth was not made in six days, there is no dome holding up the waters that are "above", there was no Adam and Eve, no Flood of Noah, no Tower of Babel, etc. It is easy to use logic and facts to prove that the Bible is full of demonstrable falsehoods. If you continue to talk on this level with me, I am not continuing. Unless you continue along the lines of good Bible exposition to derive the true message, then I am wasting my time.
The scriptures that we have, cannot be compared with the Quran. I am not going to get into a discussion about the Quran. The time is better spent getting to a true understanding of the Bible and getting rid of the lies that have built up. You have many questions to answer in my other posts to you, so I will engage with you in those threads.


Excellent! If you are correct, then the vast majority of Christians throughout history have been wrong, and all rational people should reject their claims including their holy text, the Bible, that they have been using as the basis of their claims. It is evident that in the time of the early Christians, the rot was already setting in. It is the same rot that is prevalent in the churches today and is what John describes as the antichrist.
(1 John 2:18) even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
(1 John 4:3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
That same antichrist spirit is here today and is inherent in such teaching as the Trinity. The antichrist is in the majority today.
Hence as Jude says; it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jesus has given the warning to those who think they might be safe; (Matt 7:22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


This is why your claims seem to be self-defeating and incoherent. You take a book from a prominent world-wide religion and hijack it as if you alone had its "true" interpretation! I find that as outrageous as it is absurd. The truth simply cannot be constrained to the prison of your idiosyncratic forced interpretations and fringe doctrines.
You can start by telling me what the truth was that was first delivered to the saints. We have claims like the "immortal soul" invented 300 years after the time of Jesus, when there is no scriptural support for that idea. It is about time you started to re-examine those things you were once taught or you learned. You would be right to reject some of the things you once believed, but you are wrong to dismiss the whole of the Bible as not being the word of God.

You say God is a monster for acts of genocide, which could be seen as a way of ridding the promised land of reprobates. You think God is also a monster for not stopping man killing millions of innocent people. You think God should prevent all the evil that is going on in the world and is wrong for allowing man to express his freewill. The world as it is now, is exactly as God said it would become. The world cannot go on for hundreds of years more with the way man is destroying himself and the planet. For all the good that science has benefited man, man's nature has not changed. That nature is the cause of all the world's problems. Man could solve the world's problems, but until there is a radical change in government, the desired improvements will not come about. It will happen eventually, but not by man's making.

That is it from me with this conversation. Unless the level of replies from you improves, I am done. I have responded to most of your absurd remarks in the past and you continue to spout the same. I do not intend to keep going over the same ground. I will have to wait and see whether you come up with anything constructive in future. Until we get the to truth behind such matters as what The Satan is, or the nature of Jesus, or the many prophecies that have come true and those that have yet to be fulfilled, that is where our effort should go. There is little point discussing anything else, until we come to a conclusion about one thing using good Bible exposition. I do not expect to engage with you at this level again, responding to lame comments.

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough
01-20-2014, 05:35 PM
Greetings O RAMaggedon :D

"The message entailed by Genesis 1 is obviously false if read in anything like a literal sense because it entails the false mythological cosmology common in the Ancient Near East three thousand years ago"

We're not talking about the entire chapter of Genesis 1. We're dealing SPECIFICALLY with the passages in the divinely inspired creation holograph (Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5). Even if your claim about the "firmament" were true, the creation of the "firmament" doesn't come into the picture until verse six. So IT'S NOT FOUND IN THE HOLOGRAPH.

"It simply is not true to say that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". We don't even know what those words mean"

Of course we do. "In the beginning" obviously means there was a beginning (which is backed up by science). "God" means there IS a God. "Created the heavens and the earth" clearly means this God created EVERYTHING WE SEE.

"There is no "raqiya" (dome) holding up the waters above"

You did it again ... You're not in the specific passages entailed in the creation holograph (Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5).

"The planet earth is not properly contrasted with "heaven" if heaven is taken to mean "the universe" and it was not formed "in the beginning" but rather 9 billion years later, etc"

The physical matter of the earth (and the entire universe) was created in the beginning. So the statement that the heavens and the earth (which OBVIOUSLY is referring to EVERYTHING WE SEE) was created at the beginning is literally true. That's why the creation holograph also states "ALL THINGS were made by HIM and without HIM was not ANY THING made that was made".

RAMaggedon! I love it! :sSW_emperor:

If you need to rip Genesis 1:1-5 from its context to avoid the obvious contradictions with your assertion that the entire Bible was inspired, then your argument fails. Simple as that.

You have not given a meaningful response to my criticism concerning the raqiya. You cannot assert it was not part of the original so that excuse won't work. You need to explain how and why your Omniscient God would have inspired a text that is based on fallacious cosmological mythology of the ANE. And once you have explained that, you need to explain how we are supposed to discern between truth and error in the Bible. As it stands, the only way to do that is with science. Before science, people simply believed what the Bible plainly said and so they were led into error. Therefore, it is not the Bible, but science, that is our reliable source of truth.

When I was a Christian, I too interpreted "heaven and earth" as "everything we see" meaning "the Universe". But I didn't really give much thought to how I would respond if anyone challenged me on this point. And now that I think about it, I think it is unjustifiable eisogesis. It also is logically incoherent because the text clearly distinguishes the two. If we interpret it as you suggest, then the text is saying "In the beginning God created the Universe." That's nice and modern sounding, but it is not what the text actually says. The text makes a clear distinction between "heaven" and "earth" and that distinction is maintained throughout the text from Genesis to Revelation. The Bible teaches that the we live in a three-tiered universe with of a flat earth held up by pillars with water below and waters above that are held up by a dome with heaven above. Here is an article from the conservative Christian think-tank called www.Biologos.org (http://www.biologos.org/) that explains the ancient mythological cosmology of the Bible: Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography in the Bible. (http://biologos.org/blog/mesopotamian-cosmic-geography-in-the-bible-part-3) It quotes lots of Scripture. I think they give good support for there conclusion.

http://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/godawa_3_1.jpg

This is the worldview that folks would get just by reading the Bible. This is the CONTEXT in which we find the creation holograph. Facile explanations will not help. If there is some reality to the holographs then we must reinterpret the whole Bible. This means that we can take nothing for granted. We must freely reject anything and everything that does not meet the same standard of intellect implied by the holographs. The typical practice of Christian apologetics, which pisses on truth in service of dogmas, must be rejected absolutely and completely. To use a Biblical metaphor, we need new wineskins. The holographs burst the old, and that's why you and I cannot agree. You are trying to use the holographs to prove your religious dogmas. That won't work. The contrast between the rank absurdity of the plain text and the intelligence displayed in the holographs is simply to great to be contained in the old wineskins of simplistic Christian dogmas and transparent excuses like "God let human crap saturate his otherwise perfect word" ....

I have avoided the obvious implications of the holographs for a long time because I am not interested in starting a new religion and I don't have any explanation that is consistent with any mainstream form of Christianity. So I've just let the sleeping dogs lie. But you want to wake them up. That's cool. It's definitely time for a re-evaluation now that my atheism has had time to settle in.



"The primary errors, absurdities, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God were in the original autographs"

That's impossible for you to know because WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTOGRAPHS. Granted, the evidence for the preservation of the biblical autographs is better than any other ancient text BUT if it can be shown that there are "illogical" or "immoral" elements within the 66 books WHILE AT THE SAME TIME demonstrating supernatural evidence, then that clearly demonstrates the autographs WERE originally tampered with REGARDLESS of how good the evidence for preservation is.

I agree it is impossible for me to "know" in the same sense that it is impossible for you to "know" that there even were any autographs! You have cut off the branch you were sitting on. The same evidence that suggests there were autographs excludes your suggestion that all the crap was added later by "humans". I'm talking about textual criticism, which is the only evidence you have that there were any autographs.

Your assertion that the only possible explanation for the crap is that the autographs were originally perfect and became corrupted is not true. There are other possibilities. Your suggestion directly contradicts the evidence that supports your own assertion because "the preservation of the biblical autographs" that is "better than any other ancient text" proves, if anything, that the CRAP was in there from the beginning. Sorry. Facts bite. I know. :p



"If we can't judge God, then we can't judge that he is good either"

Sure we can because Christianity DEFINES good based on God himself. So God NECESSARILY does good because goodness reflects his very nature. And since we can't know all the variables of what any particular action or event can lead to (whether in the near future or thousands of years from now), we're not justified in condemning any action that God pursues.

The fact that Christianity DEFINES God as good does not mean that we can JUDGE that God is good.

Your assertion that " God NECESSARILY does good because goodness reflects his very nature" empties the word "good" of any meaning. Is genocide good? Is sending people to suffer eternal torment in hell good? Is teaching hundreds of generations of people that the earth is immoveable and that it was created in six days good?

And it's not really the "actions of God" that are being judged, but rather the actions attributed to God in the Bible. I can - indeed, must! - judge the Bible by the same standards as any other book, such as the Quran which may have a holographic structure also. Here is a presentation by a Muslim physicist that you would accept without any question if the same things were being said about the Bible. This reveals your cognitive bias which makes your judgments unreliable.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6zRGjGRBXU



"By "imperfect" I meant that the patterns we do find are fragmentary"

Great! That fits PERFECTLY with the God of nature itself. I mean, God doesn't just slap us upside the head and say "Hey, I'm right here". He gives us a limited amount of evidence, such that those who don't want to acknowledge God can use this as an excuse to reject him. In other words, the limited nature of the evidence serves as a mechanism that brings out the true nature and essence of the individual. So it is with the bible itself ... The supernatural evidence is there but it's not going to jump out and slap you in the face. The evidence is limited (or "fragmentary"). HOWEVER ...

Just as the supernatural evidence for the bible is overwhelming (the creation holograph, the corresponding genetic evidence, the amazing patterns in the breastplate of the highpriest, the amazing patterns in the "Star of Israel", the correlation of the 66 chapters of Isaiah with the 66 biblical books and the large scale structure of the bible wheel), so the evidence for God from nature itself is overwhelming (the creation ex nihilo of the universe, the incomprehensibly finetuned values of the universe, the origin of life from non-life, the mind-boggling level of optimization in the very amino acids of life, the abstract mathematical order found in the very amino acids of life, the origin of subjective consciousness from unconscious matter and the impossibility of free will arising from chemical necessity). BUT ... This overwhelming evidence is tailored in such a way that it needs to be sought out. Hence, those who diligently seek him (and are WILLING to acknowledge him) will find him. For those who are UNWILLING, then no amount of evidence will shake them. These are the ones who grab on to the mechanism intentionally designed by God that brings out their true identify. These will look for any excuse to explain away the overwhelming evidence for the God of nature AND the supernatural evidence for the bible.

OK - so you are arguing that God gave another "measure" of imperfect evidence in the holographs and bible wheel ... just enough to balance modern science which otherwise would make faith almost impossible, without giving too much evidence that would force a rational person to believe. That's interesting. It's the sort of argument I would put forth if I wanted to believe in God.

But now that I think of it, you are directly contradicting that argument when you say that the evidence is OVERWHELMING. You saying that the evidence is not objective, but rather dependent upon whether a person "wants to believe" or not. That's the definition of cognitive bias! That's what all cults say. Muslims say you reject Allah because you don't want to believe despite the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that is so very obvious to Muslim believers. This reveals the fundamentally delusional nature of religious belief.

So we are back to square one on this point. You made up an explanation about why the evidence is imperfect even as you directly contradict yourself and say it is overwhelming. If it can be seen only by "believers" then it is not evidence. Evidence is something you could show anyone, not just those who are primed to believe whatever you say! Doh! :doh:



"Who was the "him"? The LOGOS of pre-christian Greek philosophy"

It's clear who the "him" was because THE ENTIRE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH referred to JESUS as the "LOGOS". I mean, you do realize that the Gospel of John is a CHRISTIAN TEXT, right??? And again, we know from Polycarp, the STUDENT of JOHN (John being a student of Jesus himself), that John wrote this Gospel. So CLEARLY the LOGOS is referring to JESUS. Hence, JESUS is THE CREATOR.

It seems you missed my point. The early Christians imported the concept of the Logos from Greek philosophy! It's really quite stunning to see the concepts you think of as "Christian" actually come from a mix of pagan Greek philosophy and Judaism. The Jew Philo was teaching that the Logos was the "Son of God" and the "only begotten Son of God" and the "first manifestation of God" and that's where the Christians got the idea. It did not come by divine revelation, unless you want to believe that God inspired Philo and then inspired John to copy him. Read all about it here (http://books.google.com/books?id=dt8TBNyJpEkC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=philo+logos+only+begotten&source=bl&ots=ewHVp98D_8&sig=WGOSFggXcW4cBIPWYk5QGMj8SD8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n7rdUsivNbCQyQG6uwE&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false).



"You are the one creating a smokescreen to avoid the undeniable fact that Genesis 1 is based on the false mythological cosmology of the ANE"

You did it again! ... Your claims about the "firmament" don't apply here because THEY ARE NOT FOUND IN THE PASSAGES OF THE CREATION HOLOGRAPH (Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5).

No, YOU did it again! You are DODGING the freaking elephant in the room. You cannot assert divine inspiration of Genesis 1:1-5 and then just ignore the rest of the chapter as so much dung! Get real Gambini!



"You insisted that you were "justified" to use the false value as long as there existed any old out of date websites that still uses the number 864,000"

That's not the only reason I said I was justified in using the estimated figure of 864,000 miles. The numerous numerical links from nature itself connecting the value of 864,000 to the sun AND the biblical links connecting that value to the sun leads me to believe that the estimated value of 864,000 (a value still used by secular sources) is slightly closer to the truth than 865,000. And the fact that the value of 864,000 agrees with all the studies by over 99% also makes it very likely to me that the numerical links from nature and the biblical links lend credence to the idea that the estimated value of 864,000 miles is closer to the true value. This has nothing to do with this post anyways. No need to discuss that here.

You have no evidence apart from science that the diameter of the sun is anywhere near the value of 864,000 miles. Therefore, your adherence to a value that is no longer supported by science proves that your appeal to science is pure bullshit. The best evidence is 865,373 +/- 80 miles! There is now NO SCIENCE that supports the number 864,000 miles! NONE! Zilch! And you know it because I showed you the meta study that reviewed all the results of all the different measurements over the last 32 years, and the facts simply do not allow any rational person to assert that 864,000 is a valid number. It doesn't matter if there are some erroneous websites out there that say what you want them to say. Are you insane???? That's not how truth is determined!

You are demonstrating that you care more about your idiosyncratic beliefs than the REAL truth that God (assuming he exists) would DEMAND that you state! How is it possible that you think you could be honoring God by perverting truth? I wish there were a way for me to communicate how disturbing it is to watch you do this. It's like watching maggots eating your brains. You just don't get it. I actually RESPECT AND LOVE THE TRUTH! You appear to hate and despise it. Please take no offense. Think of me as a Medic and we are in a war against the powers of darkness and they have infected your brain with truth maggots and I have no anesthesia and the only way I can help you is if you see that there are maggots eating your brain. OK? I'm just trying to help.

I trust I have not disturbed your SHALOMess.

Shine on my friend.

:sunny:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
01-20-2014, 09:06 PM
Hello Richard

Good morning David! :tea:

A Muslim would say that his god has left a record too. Merely saying that you have a record left by your god means absolutely nothing. And worse, the record you claim your god left indicates that your god is a moral monster who doesn't understand the most basic elements of reality, such as the fact that the earth was not made in six days, there is no dome holding up the waters that are "above", there was no Adam and Eve, no Flood of Noah, no Tower of Babel, etc. So what you really have is a book that is full of demonstrable falsehoods. In short, the "wood" of which you speak is full of holes. Any boat made with it would instantly sink.
You are so full of your own absurdities that you do not stop to think. Instead you rattle off the same spiel, which is unfounded and which I have challenged you on to expose your own absurdities. I now see you have said the exact same thing to rdelmonico in your next reply as shown in the quote following.


Logic most certainly can be used to prove or disprove God. For example, if God exists as described in the Bible, then he is a moral monster who doesn't understand the most basic elements of reality, such as the fact that the earth was not made in six days, there is no dome holding up the waters that are "above", there was no Adam and Eve, no Flood of Noah, no Tower of Babel, etc. It is easy to use logic and facts to prove that the Bible is full of demonstrable falsehoods.
If you continue to talk on this level with me, I am not continuing. Unless you continue along the lines of good Bible exposition to derive the true message, then I am wasting my time.

The scriptures that we have, cannot be compared with the Quran. I am not going to get into a discussion about the Quran. The time is better spent getting to a true understanding of the Bible and getting rid of the lies that have built up. You have many questions to answer in my other posts to you, so I will engage with you in those threads.

Hey there David,

If you think I have said something absurd, you are totally free to demonstrate my error. This is how it has always been around here. But merely asserting that my statements are absurd is not proof. If anyone had provided anything like proof that I was wrong on those words you highlighted red, then I would stop saying them. And if there proof were demonstrably true, I could be quickly proven to be a liar if I simply denied or ignored those proofs. So until the day that someone actually provides clear evidence that those words are not true, I have no choice but to post them because I delight in the truth and believe it is best that everyone speak the truth.

As for you "wasting your time" - why would you think that? If your words are demonstrably true, I will agree with them! Simple as that. I promise. That is my commitment. You can hold me to it. Guaranteed.

As for comparing the Bible with the Quran - I agree that the Bible is vastly superior to the Quran on many counts. But both books share many of the same flaws because the stories in the Quran derive from the Bible. It speaks of Jesus being the Messiah born of the virgin Mary, the Law given by Allah to Moses, and how Allah told Noah to make an ark, etc. So there is a lot of overlap between them. But this is irrelevant to the current discussion because I was not comparing the Quran and the Bible ... I was comparing the BELIEVERS, not their holy books. I said that a Muslim could say that his god left him a record too, so that assertion means nothing if it has not been justified as true, and you have not done that.




Excellent! If you are correct, then the vast majority of Christians throughout history have been wrong, and all rational people should reject their claims including their holy text, the Bible, that they have been using as the basis of their claims.

It is evident that in the time of the early Christians, the rot was already setting in. It is the same rot that is prevalent in the churches today and is what John describes as the antichrist.
(1 John 2:18) even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
(1 John 4:3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
That same antichrist spirit is here today and is inherent in such teaching as the Trinity. The antichrist is in the majority today.
Hence as Jude says; it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jesus has given the warning to those who think they might be safe; (Matt 7:22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

If Christianity was rotten "from the time of the early Christians" then why should anyone think it was not rotten from the very beginning? How could anyone trust those rotten Christians to produce a valid Bible? I get the impression you don't understand that the Bible was not collected together as a unified collection of books until about the third century! Don't you realize what this means? The Bible was put together by thoroughly rotten Christians who taught that Christ was God and that angels had fallen and that unrepentant souls went to hell to suffer forever when they died! All these things were taught by the very people who put together the Bible. So please explain why you trust that they put together the correct books if they were teaching things that you totally reject. It makes no sense at all to me.




This is why your claims seem to be self-defeating and incoherent. You take a book from a prominent world-wide religion and hijack it as if you alone had its "true" interpretation! I find that as outrageous as it is absurd. The truth simply cannot be constrained to the prison of your idiosyncratic forced interpretations and fringe doctrines.
You can start by telling me what the truth was that was first delivered to the saints. We have claims like the "immortal soul" invented 300 years after the time of Jesus, when there is no scriptural support for that idea. It is about time you started to re-examine those things you were once taught or you learned. You would be right to reject some of the things you once believed, but you are wrong to dismiss the whole of the Bible as not being the word of God.

What makes you think that the book of Jude belongs in the Bible? I get the impression you don't understand that it was a highly disputed book. Jude was still being disputed in the fourth century, along with James and 2 Peter. Here's what the wiki says:
Among the disputed writings, [των αντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books [των αντιλεγομένων].
Don't you think it might be significant that the two letters that most explicitly speak of fallen angels were both disputed as belonging in the Bible? Why do you think they belong? What is your standard? I get the impression you simply accept the human tradition without question. Did you know that Jude and 2 Peter are also missing from the Syrian Peshitta?

Now you want me to start by telling you what was the "truth that was first delivered to the saints?" I'll do that as soon as you explain which books should be included in the Bible and why. Otherwise I'd have no books to use in my explanation.

If I need to "re-examine those things I was once taught or learned" then so do you! Who taught you that angels do not sin? Who taught you that Jesus was not God? Where did you learn that the Bible is supposed to have 66 books instead of 73 like some of the oldest Bibles in existence?



You say God is a monster for acts of genocide, which could be seen as a way of ridding the promised land of reprobates. You think God is also a monster for not stopping man killing millions of innocent people. You think God should prevent all the evil that is going on in the world and is wrong for allowing man to express his freewill. The world as it is now, is exactly as God said it would become. The world cannot go on for hundreds of years more with the way man is destroying himself and the planet. For all the good that science has benefited man, man's nature has not changed. That nature is the cause of all the world's problems. Man could solve the world's problems, but until there is a radical change in government, the desired improvements will not come about. It will happen eventually, but not by man's making.

I think I understand why you get so upset. It seems you don't really listen with understanding, like you put your fingers in your ears and say "I can't hear you, lalalalalala". We've been discussing these topics for two years. There's no excuse for such continued confusion. I understand your points of view with perfect clarity and can explain them back to you to prove that I understand. E.g. God's angels can't sin because if they could that would contradict Christ's statement that God's will is done in heaven. See how easy that is? So why don't you understand what I have been saying over and over and over again? Here again are my basic explanations:

1) Genocide is ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL. That's why I say it shows God to be a moral monster. If he wanted the Canaanites out of the land, he could have done it himself without corrupting his "holy people" by commanding that they become merciless baby killers. Have you no concept what that kind of brutality would do to a human? And asserting that God was not immoral destroys the moral sense of believers. That's why the ATHEIST can assert that morality is truly immoral whereas the Christian cannot because God did it. You can see this in the video debate between Hector Avalos and Keith Darrel (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today).

2) I have never said that God should "eliminate all the evil in the world." And your appeal to "free will" makes no sense because God overrides everyone's free will all the time. Haven't you ever heard of the flood? Do you think they wanted to be drowned? God eliminated all the evil in the world by killing everyone except those on the ark. Talk about overriding free will! Your argument is obviously fallacious.

3) "The world as it is now, is exactly as God said it would become." No it is not. First, God never told any of his believers about computers, cell phones, airplanes, or the internet. Too bad, they could have made a killing buying Microsoft stock if he had just given them a little hint of the way the world was to become. But he didn't do that. On the contrary, he taught them to believe ancient cosmological mythology and to distrust science which hinders their intellectual progress to this very day.

4) "The world cannot go on for hundreds of years more with the way man is destroying himself and the planet." Yeah, right! Here's a long "short list" of a few of the failed doomsday predictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events) that Christians (and a few others) have produced in the last two thousand years. Do you really think any sane person would start believing them now that they've been 100% wrong for 2000 years straight?

5) "It will happen eventually, but not by man's making." It already is happening by man's making, big time. The incidence of violence is sharply dropping. Humanity has saved millions of people that God would have let die horrible deaths even as they begged him to save them. We are feeding billions of people. The primary hindrance to world peace are political and religious ideologies.



That is it from me with this conversation. Unless the level of replies from you improves, I am done. I have responded to most of your absurd remarks in the past and you continue to spout the same. I do not intend to keep going over the same ground. I will have to wait and see whether you come up with anything constructive in future. Until we get the to truth behind such matters as what The Satan is, or the nature of Jesus, or the many prophecies that have come true and those that have yet to be fulfilled, that is where our effort should go. There is little point discussing anything else, until we come to a conclusion about one thing using good Bible exposition. I do not expect to engage with you at this level again, responding to lame comments.

All the best
David
Your assertion that my remarks have been "absurd" is itself absurd. You know full well that I give reasons based on logic and facts for my remarks. If you could prove me wrong you would. If I could not defend myself, you could rub it in my nose and gloat over may failure to be able to give a reasoned response. You could parade your proofs of my errors all around this forum and there would be nothing that I could do to stop you without confirming the truth of your words. You have never done anything like that. It is ludicrous for you to falsely assert that my arguments are "absurd." It rings of deep desperation, as if you really know that your charge is false.

So let's drop the BS and get back to authentic intellectual discussions based on logic, facts, and truth.

For example, you suggest that we discuss the fulfillment of prophecy. Great! If you want to talk about that or any other fresh topic, just start a thread, present your evidence, and I will answer.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
01-20-2014, 09:09 PM
I wonder what percentage of the general population would consider the God of the Bible to be a moral monster?
Probably about the same percentage that would think Allah is a moral monster.

Richard Amiel McGough
01-20-2014, 09:18 PM
That's your opinion, but it is demonstrably false, unless you are using the word "God" without giving it any definition. If you define it in any meaningful sense, then the definition would entail certain logical consequences that could be tested to see if they are true or false. If no logical consequences follow from your definition, then it would be empty of any real meaning.
Creator of time and space.
Some of the greastest minds have argued about the existence of a creator and I have not seen anything conclusive.
Can anyone prove the big bang?
The universe is winding down.
What wound it up?
The greatest mind on the planet couldn't tell you.
Are you an INTJ?

http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html
I seem to remember being something like an INTJ but I don't recall exactly and don't have time right now to take the test again.

I know that great minds have speculated about God, but most of those "great minds" lived in an age before modern science so they had no explanation for how life evolved through natural processes and without that it's pretty hard to imagine where everything came from without a god to create it. But even then, the god they imagined was often nothing like the god of the fundamentalists.

And the concept of a "creator of time and space" is logically incoherent because a being outside of time could not "do" anything because acts entail time which didn't exist yet. Such a creator could not create, by definition.

As for the universe "winding down" - The second law should not be mentioned by anyone but a trained physicist (which I am). One reason for the low entropy of the early universe could be because it was all radiation, and radiation does not "clump" under gravity like matter. So if the early universe was in thermal equilibrium (maximal entropy) with a uniform distribution of radiation, then when it expanded sufficiently for the formation of heavy elements that began to clump together under gravity, the universe would begin from a maximal entropy for a radiation/gas which was a minimal entropy for a gas subject to gravitation, and we have our explanation.

Richard Amiel McGough
01-20-2014, 09:22 PM
But who says that the bible has to be taken literal?
Lot's of people ... but not me. You can take it any way you want. I would suggest taking it with a grain of salt.

sylvius
01-20-2014, 11:44 PM
Lot's of people ... but not me. You can take it any way you want. I would suggest taking it with a grain of salt.

But what if it loses its savour?

It makes think of Rashi's comment on Genesis 1:1,

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165#showrashi=true


ומה טעם פתח בבראשית, "umah taam patach bivreishit"? = "and what taste it is that it commences with "b'reishit"?

"taam" = taste.

On Genesis 1:11-12 Rashi commented:




fruit trees: That the taste of the tree should be like the taste of the fruit. It [the earth] did not do so, however, but“the earth gave forth, etc., trees producing fruit,” but the trees themselves were not fruit. Therefore, when man was cursed because of his iniquity, it [the earth] too was punished for its iniquity (and was cursed-not in all editions). - [from Gen. Rabbah 5:9]

Matthew 5:13 might well be about the same:
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

Mystykal
01-21-2014, 12:04 AM
Hey there David,

If you think I have said something absurd, you are totally free to demonstrate my error. This is how it has always been around here. But merely asserting that my statements are absurd is not proof. If anyone had provided anything like proof that I was wrong on those words you highlighted red, then I would stop saying them. And if there proof were demonstrably true, I could be quickly proven to be a liar if I simply denied or ignored those proofs. So until the day that someone actually provides clear evidence that those words are not true, I have no choice but to post them because I delight in the truth and believe it is best that everyone speak the truth.

As for you "wasting your time" - why would you think that? If your words are demonstrably true, I will agree with them! Simple as that. I promise. That is my commitment. You can hold me to it. Guaranteed.

As for comparing the Bible with the Quran - I agree that the Bible is vastly superior to the Quran on many counts. But both books share many of the same flaws because the stories in the Quran derive from the Bible. It speaks of Jesus being the Messiah born of the virgin Mary, the Law given by Allah to Moses, and how Allah told Noah to make an ark, etc. So there is a lot of overlap between them. But this is irrelevant to the current discussion because I was not comparing the Quran and the Bible ... I was comparing the BELIEVERS, not their holy books. I said that a Muslim could say that his god left him a record too, so that assertion means nothing if it has not been justified as true, and you have not done that.


If Christianity was rotten "from the time of the early Christians" then why should anyone think it was not rotten from the very beginning? How could anyone trust those rotten Christians to produce a valid Bible? I get the impression you don't understand that the Bible was not collected together as a unified collection of books until about the third century! Don't you realize what this means? The Bible was put together by thoroughly rotten Christians who taught that Christ was God and that angels had fallen and that unrepentant souls went to hell to suffer forever when they died! All these things were taught by the very people who put together the Bible. So please explain why you trust that they put together the correct books if they were teaching things that you totally reject. It makes no sense at all to me.


What makes you think that the book of Jude belongs in the Bible? I get the impression you don't understand that it was a highly disputed book. Jude was still being disputed in the fourth century, along with James and 2 Peter. Here's what the wiki says:
Among the disputed writings, [των αντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books [των αντιλεγομένων].
Don't you think it might be significant that the two letters that most explicitly speak of fallen angels were both disputed as belonging in the Bible? Why do you think they belong? What is your standard? I get the impression you simply accept the human tradition without question. Did you know that Jude and 2 Peter are also missing from the Syrian Peshitta?

Now you want me to start by telling you what was the "truth that was first delivered to the saints?" I'll do that as soon as you explain which books should be included in the Bible and why. Otherwise I'd have no books to use in my explanation.

If I need to "re-examine those things I was once taught or learned" then so do you! Who taught you that angels do not sin? Who taught you that Jesus was not God? Where did you learn that the Bible is supposed to have 66 books instead of 73 like some of the oldest Bibles in existence?


I think I understand why you get so upset. It seems you don't really listen with understanding, like you put your fingers in your ears and say "I can't hear you, lalalalalala". We've been discussing these topics for two years. There's no excuse for such continued confusion. I understand your points of view with perfect clarity and can explain them back to you to prove that I understand. E.g. God's angels can't sin because if they could that would contradict Christ's statement that God's will is done in heaven. See how easy that is? So why don't you understand what I have been saying over and over and over again? Here again are my basic explanations:

1) Genocide is ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL. That's why I say it shows God to be a moral monster. If he wanted the Canaanites out of the land, he could have done it himself without corrupting his "holy people" by commanding that they become merciless baby killers. Have you no concept what that kind of brutality would do to a human? And asserting that God was not immoral destroys the moral sense of believers. That's why the ATHEIST can assert that morality is truly immoral whereas the Christian cannot because God did it. You can see this in the video debate between Hector Avalos and Keith Darrel (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today).

2) I have never said that God should "eliminate all the evil in the world." And your appeal to "free will" makes no sense because God overrides everyone's free will all the time. Haven't you ever heard of the flood? Do you think they wanted to be drowned? God eliminated all the evil in the world by killing everyone except those on the ark. Talk about overriding free will! Your argument is obviously fallacious.

3) "The world as it is now, is exactly as God said it would become." No it is not. First, God never told any of his believers about computers, cell phones, airplanes, or the internet. Too bad, they could have made a killing buying Microsoft stock if he had just given them a little hint of the way the world was to become. But he didn't do that. On the contrary, he taught them to believe ancient cosmological mythology and to distrust science which hinders their intellectual progress to this very day.

4) "The world cannot go on for hundreds of years more with the way man is destroying himself and the planet." Yeah, right! Here's a long "short list" of a few of the failed doomsday predictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events) that Christians (and a few others) have produced in the last two thousand years. Do you really think any sane person would start believing them now that they've been 100% wrong for 2000 years straight?

5) "It will happen eventually, but not by man's making." It already is happening by man's making, big time. The incidence of violence is sharply dropping. Humanity has saved millions of people that God would have let die horrible deaths even as they begged him to save them. We are feeding billions of people. The primary hindrance to world peace are political and religious ideologies.


Your assertion that my remarks have been "absurd" is itself absurd. You know full well that I give reasons based on logic and facts for my remarks. If you could prove me wrong you would. If I could not defend myself, you could rub it in my nose and gloat over may failure to be able to give a reasoned response. You could parade your proofs of my errors all around this forum and there would be nothing that I could do to stop you without confirming the truth of your words. You have never done anything like that. It is ludicrous for you to falsely assert that my arguments are "absurd." It rings of deep desperation, as if you really know that your charge is false.

So let's drop the BS and get back to authentic intellectual discussions based on logic, facts, and truth.

For example, you suggest that we discuss the fulfillment of prophecy. Great! If you want to talk about that or any other fresh topic, just start a thread, present your evidence, and I will answer.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Hi Richard:

You seem to be ignoring me! :D j/k I agree with your comments here to David. But I think you know that I do not see why you ignore the actual facts as stated in the Word. You side-step the issue of faith! I tried to start a thread on the topic but everyone seems more interested in arguing about the absurdities in the Bible rather than understanding the reason the absurdities are present! The truth is always hidden. The wheat and the tares must grow together! It is this aspect of truth which you fail to see...

I think your rejection of all things faith/spiritual is the cause of so much misunderstanding on your part. Can you understand that?

Namaste,


Mystykal

rdelmonico
01-21-2014, 02:58 AM
I seem to remember being something like an INTJ but I don't recall exactly and don't have time right now to take the test again.

I know that great minds have speculated about God, but most of those "great minds" lived in an age before modern science so they had no explanation for how life evolved through natural processes and without that it's pretty hard to imagine where everything came from without a god to create it. But even then, the god they imagined was often nothing like the god of the fundamentalists.

And the concept of a "creator of time and space" is logically incoherent because a being outside of time could not "do" anything because acts entail time which didn't exist yet. Such a creator could not create, by definition.

As for the universe "winding down" - The second law should not be mentioned by anyone but a trained physicist (which I am). One reason for the low entropy of the early universe could be because it was all radiation, and radiation does not "clump" under gravity like matter. So if the early universe was in thermal equilibrium (maximal entropy) with a uniform distribution of radiation, then when it expanded sufficiently for the formation of heavy elements that began to clump together under gravity, the universe would begin from a maximal entropy for a radiation/gas which was a minimal entropy for a gas subject to gravitation, and we have our explanation.

Time, gravity, the stretching out of space and the second law of thermal dynamics are somehow linked in a manner that has yet to be described.

There are competing theories of what happened before or instead of the big bang.
Brane theory.
The big crunch.
No big bang.
Creation by intelligent design.
Digital universe theory.
Quantum gravity ect...
Any explanation that goes back to the big bang and then stops is unsatisfying and only raises more questions.

These are the easy problems.
It's when you look at biology that the really difficult problems pop up.
An immensely complicated set of parallel and sequential steps have to occur together, just for life to get started.

A statistical analysis of the spontaneous creation of life, tells us that we require vast amounts of time.
If there is not enough time then we simply say that life on earth was seeded.
Then we keep stepping back in our logic until we have covered our tracks.

This stuff has not been solved to my satisfaction
Are you satisfied with the answers we have at this time?
There is still room for surprises and I would venture to guess that the biggest surprises are just around the corner.

"IF" God exist, what is he up to? What does he want?
My guess would be he wants us to trust him without forcing us into this position.
So no-one is forcing you to believe anything.
We are all on the same quest for answers.
Logic is a tool. A screwdriver only works well on screws.

Peace and love.
I'm not trying to be hostile or deceptive.
Please do not be angry with me.
Rick

David M
01-21-2014, 05:49 AM
Hello Richard

Hey there David,

If you think I have said something absurd, you are totally free to demonstrate my error. I have, but what good does it do? You simply dismiss what I say as “absurd”. "Absurd" is one of your pet words and when I use it to comment on your statements, I am accused of being a copycat. Nothing I say in my reply to your comments is going to change the way you think now.


This is how it has always been around here. But merely asserting that my statements are absurd is not proof. If anyone had provided anything like proof that I was wrong on those words you highlighted red, then I would stop saying them. And if there proof were demonstrably true, I could be quickly proven to be a liar if I simply denied or ignored those proofs. So until the day that someone actually provides clear evidence that those words are not true, I have no choice but to post them because I delight in the truth and believe it is best that everyone speak the truth. You are pushing your own agenda to say that God is a monster. You do not put the other side and balance the fact that God is longsuffering and merciful, kind, gracious, full of truth. That is something you cannot deal with.


As for you "wasting your time" - why would you think that? If your words are demonstrably true, I will agree with them! Simple as that. I promise. That is my commitment. You can hold me to it. Guaranteed. I never claim that my words are true, I look for the true meaning in what the Bible has to say. To do that, all interpretations have to be considered and then gradually eliminated to leave one ideally that is the truth.


As for comparing the Bible with the Quran - I agree that the Bible is vastly superior to the Quran on many counts. But both books share many of the same flaws because the stories in the Quran derive from the Bible. It speaks of Jesus being the Messiah born of the virgin Mary, the Law given by Allah to Moses, and how Allah told Noah to make an ark, etc. So there is a lot of overlap between them. But this is irrelevant to the current discussion because I was not comparing the Quran and the Bible ... I was comparing the BELIEVERS, not their holy books. I said that a Muslim could say that his god left him a record too, so that assertion means nothing if it has not been justified as true, and you have not done that.I have gone over this point in the past, that is why you need not keep bringing it up in our conversations. At least if we stay focussed on getting to the truth in one topic, we do not have to keep going over this same ground. I am only going to reason from the Bible as it is now; not what it might have been.


If Christianity was rotten "from the time of the early Christians" then why should anyone think it was not rotten from the very beginning? How could anyone trust those rotten Christians to produce a valid Bible? I get the impression you don't understand that the Bible was not collected together as a unified collection of books until about the third century! Don't you realize what this means? The Bible was put together by thoroughly rotten Christians who taught that Christ was God and that angels had fallen and that unrepentant souls went to hell to suffer forever when they died! All these things were taught by the very people who put together the Bible. So please explain why you trust that they put together the correct books if they were teaching things that you totally reject. It makes no sense at all to me. The KJV is perhaps one of the best attempts at bringing the truth of the scriptures into the hands of the common people. The translation is not without some bias where there has been difficulty in coming up with a meaning. At least the KJV shows in italics words which were not in the original manuscripts. I do not accuse all the compilers of the Bible to be rotten, they were perhaps subject to the rottenness of others as we are today. I gave you the Bible references in John that showed the rottenness is the antichrist. The antichrist has been there from the time John was writing. It is that spirit of antichrist that has to be overcome now by revealing the false message that it represents. Any statement that suggests Christ did not come in the flesh has to be rejected. Therefore, do you reject any doctrine that suggests differently? If not, why not? You are in a position to rule out certain things, but are you doing so, or are you deliberately making life difficult for me by constantly citing what other Christians believe. So what; it makes no difference to there being one truth and it is up to us as individuals to find it. I only dismiss what you say, when it is not founded on what the Bible as a whole is saying.



What makes you think that the book of Jude belongs in the Bible? I get the impression you don't understand that it was a highly disputed book. Jude was still being disputed in the fourth century, along with James and 2 Peter. Here's what the wiki says:
Among the disputed writings, [των αντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books [των αντιλεγομένων].I do not find anything contentious in the Book of Jude once the correct meaning is understood. It is not to be compared with the Book of Enoch that is untrustworthy and it not the book (if it is a book) that Jude is using to quote Enoch. You were right in your first assessment of the book of Enoch and that is why Jude was not quoting from the book that it has become.


Don't you think it might be significant that the two letters that most explicitly speak of fallen angels were both disputed as belonging in the Bible? Why do you think they belong? What is your standard? I get the impression you simply accept the human tradition without question. Did you know that Jude and 2 Peter are also missing from the Syrian Peshitta? I said that we must deal with the Bible as we have it today. I am not going to let questions like the last one distract me from reasoning with you from the Bible. I find nothing wrong in the letters of Peter or Jude that conflict. I have given you my exposition of Jude 5 and 6 and I have asked you to do the same, but I am still waiting for you to give a word-by-word exposition.


Now you want me to start by telling you what was the "truth that was first delivered to the saints?" I'll do that as soon as you explain which books should be included in the Bible and why. Otherwise I'd have no books to use in my explanation.No Richard! I am not going to answer you first. I have done so in the past and last time you said this to me, I said I was going to stop. I have asked you to explain something to me and I am waiting for your answer. Your answer has to be based on the word of God as we have it now.


If I need to "re-examine those things I was once taught or learned" then so do you! Who taught you that angels do not sin? Who taught you that Jesus was not God? Where did you learn that the Bible is supposed to have 66 books instead of 73 like some of the oldest Bibles in existence? I am constantly doing what you say by going over the evidence. I am reasoning from the Bible as it is from the ancient texts that are available to be scrutinized. We have enough texts to consider without thinking about the texts not included. If the Book of Enoch was not included and I can see why, then I am prepared to accept the judgement made on other books that have been left out. I could spend the remainder of my life reading all those books not included and come to the same conclusion as those who left them out of the Bible. You reason with me from the Bible and make sense of what we have.


I think I understand why you get so upset. It seems you don't really listen with understanding, like you put your fingers in your ears and say "I can't hear you, lalalalalala". We've been discussing these topics for two years. There's no excuse for such continued confusion.Now you are repeating what I have been saying in posts recently. (Zech 7:11) But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Are you sure, you are not doing the same?


I understand your points of view with perfect clarity and can explain them back to you to prove that I understand. E.g. God's angels can't sin because if they could that would contradict Christ's statement that God's will is done in heaven. See how easy that is? So why don't you understand what I have been saying over and over and over again? What perfect clarity? I would not have argued for two years had that been the case. You do not acknowledge why what you have written can be ambiguous? I have explained why and it makes no difference to you. If you were really saying what you say here, you would have carried on and explained away the paradox again as you did at the beginning. That is why I know you do not think that God’s Angels do not sin. You gave me the explanations that said God’s Angels could sin. You use 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 in support of your claim that they do.


Here again are my basic explanations:: I have answered you on this already, I should will give you my reply for the last time.



1) Genocide is ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL. That is true when not ordered by God who has judged righteously the situation. If man alone commits genocide I completely agree. Those committing genocide today are no better on moral grounds than those they are killing. Saying it is done on religious grounds is no more than man pleasing himself; it has nothing to do with pleasing God.


That's why I say it shows God to be a moral monster. If he wanted the Canaanites out of the land, he could have done it himself without corrupting his "holy people" by commanding that they become merciless baby killers. You make an invalid conclusion. God did not corrupt his “holy people”. The Bible says that God held them guiltless. God killed reprobates as his righteous judgement for their abominations which defined them as reprobates and not worth saving. They would not be accepted into God’s kingdom and God was only killing people who practised infant sacrifice to gods that did not exist. By God using his chosen people, he was also testing them. They too proved not to be faithful. We might conclude that their unfaithfulness was not to be compared with the abominations of the heathen. These things have been recorded for our learning and we have to learn all the lessons we can from these events. They do not teach us to do as God’s people were instructed to do at that time.


2) I have never said that God should "eliminate all the evil in the world." And your appeal to "free will" makes no sense because God overrides everyone's free will all the time. Haven't you ever heard of the flood? Do you think they wanted to be drowned? God eliminated all the evil in the world by killing everyone except those on the ark. Talk about overriding free will! Your argument is obviously fallacious. . I guessed you would object to my putting those exact words in your mouth, but in agreeing with Rose and in my correspondence with her, it is quite clear you blame God for not intervening and preventing horrific crimes. If that were not the case, then as I keep saying; you have to blame man first, before you lay the blame on God. God is metering out punishment according to righteous judgement. There is the truism ; they who live by the sword will die by the sword. So why accuse God when his judgement fits in with that?
If my argument is fallacious, your argument is pathetic. Freewill is something that you and I have. God has not taken away your freewill or has he? Tell me why you do not have freewill?
In that God has put an end to the lives of corrupt people at times in the past, does not mean those people did not have freewill why they were alive. To say that death is the cessation of freewill , that is a given. You are free with the words “everyone” and “all”. Of course God can override anyone’s freewill, but that does not mean he does. Only when it would conflict with his plan, can we see where God is perhaps in control of things. Did Pharaoh choose not to believe Moses speaking for God. Could not Pharaoh have simply said “yes” instead of “no”?
I expect you can argue that by your freewill you should be able to live forever. Even the The Theory of Evolution has not given you that luxury. Death is the cessation of life and freewill.


Have you no concept what that kind of brutality would do to a human? And asserting that God was not immoral destroys the moral sense of believers. That's why the ATHEIST can assert that morality is truly immoral whereas the Christian cannot because God did it. I see the effects war has on soldiers these days. It is not the same for all soldiers. I get your point, but it is not the basis for God not doing what he did. In fact, from the text we glean the fact that the Angel of God did most of the killing. What little was left to the Israel to do, they failed. Now you have to take Israel's failure to comply with God's instruction into account. This is the cause of most of the problems, man does not follow God's instruction.
I do not assert God is immoral because God’s judgement is based on righteousness. We can see with God’s own people, God did not spare them and used the Assyrian nation as an instrument of punishment on one occasion. It is not like God had not warned his people, or pleaded with them to change their ways. After all, his long-suffering and patience, God was justified in doing what he said he would do. That is the principle I see God using and where the stories are few in words, I see no reason to say that God was any different at those times. Noah was building the ark for 100 years before the flood came, and I can see you saying if you had lived at that time; "there is not going to be a flood. You have been saying this for 99 years Noah, so why should I believe you now?


3) "The world as it is now, is exactly as God said it would become." No it is not. First, God never told any of his believers about computers, cell phones, airplanes, or the internet. Too bad, they could have made a killing buying Microsoft stock if he had just given them a little hint of the way the world was to become. But he didn't do that. On the contrary, he taught them to believe ancient cosmological mythology and to distrust science which hinders their intellectual progress to this very day. Do not be pathetic. I am not talking about modern inventions that people at the time of Jesus would know nothing about. I am talking about the state of the world in terms of human affairs. So we have had earthquakes, famines and pestilences throughout the ages, but all these things are getting worse and more frequent. We are on the verge of economic collapse and whilst the economy has tended to go in cycles, the world’s economies could fall over the cliff and that is an end of the cycle. America is bust, the UK is bust and so are many other countries; they are all bust Capitalism does not work. What does the New World Order require? Those conspiring behind the scenes will want to see a reduction in the earth’s population to around half a billion. The New World Order is coming, but it will be the demise of the likes of the Illuminati. You put your faith in science and science does not have the ultimate solution to man’s problem.


4) "The world cannot go on for hundreds of years more with the way man is destroying himself and the planet." Yeah, right! Here's a long "short list" of a few of the failed doomsday predictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events) that Christians (and a few others) have produced in the last two thousand years. Do you really think any sane person would start believing them now that they've been 100% wrong for 2000 years straight? That is the expected answer. It does not negate the fact that when a woman becomes pregnant, she expects to give birth even though the exact time of the birth is not known. The same goes for the promise of God, we are getting closer to final birth pangs.


5) "It will happen eventually, but not by man's making." It already is happening by man's making, big time. The incidence of violence is sharply dropping. Humanity has saved millions of people that God would have let die horrible deaths even as they begged him to save them. We are feeding billions of people. The primary hindrance to world peace are political and religious ideologies. What about all the people that are dying at the merciless hands of the armies in countries we hardly know about? You are right about religious ideologies being at the root. Those ideologies are the making of men and not of God. If men were true to God’s ideology, there would not be the wars. Perhaps we should agree what God’s ideology is and then see how men have ignored that and are doing that which is right in their own eyes. That is what God’s people did when there was no king to rule them and when there was a king to rule over them, we see how fickle the people were to the whether there was a good king or an evil king (according to God’s definition) ruling over the people.

You say “we are feeding billions” so why has that situation developed in the first place? There are many more billions that are not being fed. Some of the aid that is being sent to the countries, is being siphoned off by corrupt governments in those countries. I do not disagree that a lot of good is not being done, but there is so much corruption on top of the problems caused by man in the first place. We are benefiting from the technological advances made by space research which cost billions of dollars, but what if all that money had gone into dealing with the world’s food shortage problems and housing problems? The gap between rich and poor is widening. 24% of all Europeans are regarded as living below the poverty line. What are the figures in America?


Your assertion that my remarks have been "absurd" is itself absurd. You know full well that I give reasons based on logic and facts for my remarks. If you could prove me wrong you would. If I could not defend myself, you could rub it in my nose and gloat over may failure to be able to give a reasoned response. You could parade your proofs of my errors all around this forum and there would be nothing that I could do to stop you without confirming the truth of your words. You have never done anything like that. It is ludicrous for you to falsely assert that my arguments are "absurd." It rings of deep desperation, as if you really know that your charge is false. I am pointing out to you that you are only giving one side of the argument. I have to give the other side. You only present God as a monster and leave out the fact that God is loving, long-suffering, patience, kind etc. Given that God is all these things and appears to be a monster by the killing that took place, the only course of action is to understand how all these things apply to God. God is not the monster when it is taken into account that he has given a warning. He has stated what he will do, and finally he has to carry out that which he has said he will do. Even with his own chosen race, we see how God had to plead with them to change their ways, before he had to finally punish them when they did not change their ways.


So let's drop the BS and get back to authentic intellectual discussions based on logic, facts, and truth. Good of you to acknowledge that you have given a lot of BS, besides accusing me of doing the same.


For example, you suggest that we discuss the fulfilment of prophecy. Great! If you want to talk about that or any other fresh topic, just start a thread, present your evidence, and I will answer. There are plenty of unfinished threads (including prophecy) to carry on with before starting new threads.
I will respond in the other threads as I see your replies.

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough
01-21-2014, 07:59 AM
Hi Richard:

You seem to be ignoring me! :D j/k I agree with your comments here to David. But I think you know that I do not see why you ignore the actual facts as stated in the Word. You side-step the issue of faith! I tried to start a thread on the topic but everyone seems more interested in arguing about the absurdities in the Bible rather than understanding the reason the absurdities are present! The truth is always hidden. The wheat and the tares must grow together! It is this aspect of truth which you fail to see...

I think your rejection of all things faith/spiritual is the cause of so much misunderstanding on your part. Can you understand that?

Namaste,


Mystykal
Hey there Mystykal,

I was thinking you probably felt like I was ignoring you, sorry! Get pulled in too many directions. Case in point: I have to got to work like five minutes ago! I'll answer more when I get home.

Richard

Rose
01-21-2014, 12:43 PM
Hi Richard:

You seem to be ignoring me! :D j/k I agree with your comments here to David. But I think you know that I do not see why you ignore the actual facts as stated in the Word. You side-step the issue of faith! I tried to start a thread on the topic but everyone seems more interested in arguing about the absurdities in the Bible rather than understanding the reason the absurdities are present! The truth is always hidden. The wheat and the tares must grow together! It is this aspect of truth which you fail to see...

I think your rejection of all things faith/spiritual is the cause of so much misunderstanding on your part. Can you understand that?

Namaste,


Mystykal

Hello Mystykal :yo:


Why would you say the truth is always hidden? Many truths are in plain sight. Isn't that a justification for the absurdities and falsehoods contained in the Bible?

Take care,
Rose

rdelmonico
01-21-2014, 03:30 PM
accidental post

Richard Amiel McGough
01-21-2014, 09:31 PM
Time, gravity, the stretching out of space and the second law of thermal dynamics are somehow linked in a manner that has yet to be described.

There are competing theories of what happened before or instead of the big bang.
Brane theory.
The big crunch.
No big bang.
Creation by intelligent design.
Digital universe theory.
Quantum gravity ect...
Any explanation that goes back to the big bang and then stops is unsatisfying and only raises more questions.

So what? Science is in its infancy. We've only known about Quantum Physics and Relativity for about a hundred years. It would be folly to try to make any arguments for God based on our ignorance of the scientific explanations that are yet to come.



These are the easy problems.
It's when you look at biology that the really difficult problems pop up.
An immensely complicated set of parallel and sequential steps have to occur together, just for life to get started.

A statistical analysis of the spontaneous creation of life, tells us that we require vast amounts of time.
If there is not enough time then we simply say that life on earth was seeded.
Then we keep stepping back in our logic until we have covered our tracks.

This stuff has not been solved to my satisfaction
Are you satisfied with the answers we have at this time?
There is still room for surprises and I would venture to guess that the biggest surprises are just around the corner.

Again, I must ask "So what?" Of course we don't have all the answers. But we have more than enough evidence to prove that the Bible is not a reliable guide. So what is your point in talking about the edges of our scientific knowledge? It implies nothing that would suggest we could get good answers from the Bible.



"IF" God exist, what is he up to? What does he want?
My guess would be he wants us to trust him without forcing us into this position.
So no-one is forcing you to believe anything.
We are all on the same quest for answers.
Logic is a tool. A screwdriver only works well on screws.

Your comment makes no sense to me. I can't imagine how anyone could say that "God is trustworthy. The idea that God would want us to trust him makes no sense to me, because it contradicts everything everyone knows. If God exists he has gone to great pains to prove absolutely that he is absolutely the most untrustworthy person who has ever existed. I am not joking. This is serious. Everyone knows they cannot actually TRUST GOD to do anything for anyone in this life. This is an absolutely incontrovertible fact. The folks who "trust God" for the health of their children end up with dead children and manslaughter convictions. If God were half as trustworthy as the average dentist there would be no dispute about his existence. The proof is absolute and incontrovertible. Therefore, the idea that God is trustworthy seems utterly delusional to me. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to offend. Please take no offense. I'm just telling you something that seems as true to me as the fact that water is wet.



Peace and love.
I'm not trying to be hostile or deceptive.
Please do not be angry with me.
Rick
Peace and love to you too! I am not trying to be hostile either and I would be very sad if you thought I were. I am only sharing what I see.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
01-21-2014, 10:01 PM
Hi Richard:

You seem to be ignoring me! :D j/k I agree with your comments here to David. But I think you know that I do not see why you ignore the actual facts as stated in the Word. You side-step the issue of faith! I tried to start a thread on the topic but everyone seems more interested in arguing about the absurdities in the Bible rather than understanding the reason the absurdities are present! The truth is always hidden. The wheat and the tares must grow together! It is this aspect of truth which you fail to see...

I think your rejection of all things faith/spiritual is the cause of so much misunderstanding on your part. Can you understand that?

Namaste,


Mystykal
Hey there Mystykal,

I finally found some time to respond to your ever-interesting comments and insights. Which "facts" do you think I am "sidestepping"? It would help if you stated them explicitly so I would know how to answer.

As for the "issue of faith" - I don't know what you mean. Faith implies trust, and the one thing that everyone knows is that God cannot be actually TRUSTED to do anything for anyone in this life. The last time we talked about this you offered Roger Morneau as an example of "faith in action." When I looked him up on the internet, I had no choice but to conclude he was either an utter fraud or totally delusional. He claimed that he had been at a meeting of Satanists who bragged about deceiving the whole world except for one small group, the Seventh Day Adventists, because they held to the Sabbath (as if there were no other Sabbatarian groups)! And then he went on to say that the Satanists were plotting to deceive the world by teaching them to deny the specific cultic beliefs held by the SDA, such as the idea that people have an "immortal soul" that survives death. His stories are ludicrous. Utterly unbelievable. I'm sorry, no offense intended ... you know how I enjoy straight talk. :winking0071:


What was the thread you started? I probably missed it. Sorry. Post a link or name and I'll take a look.


I understand the concept of the wheat and tares growing up together, but that's not an answer to all questions. And it is based on the presumption of truth of the Bible which has yet to be established.

I do not "reject all things faith/spiritual" - it is a mistake to conflate those two ideas. I am totally into faith - it is the key to everything if properly understood. And how is it properly understood? As "trust" - and that's why it cannot be applied to the God concept. I know of nothing that anyone can trust God to actually do. If you know of something that can be demonstrated to be true - which is the real meaning of trustworthy! - then please prove to me that God is trustworthy. If you cannot demonstrate that God is trustworthy, then you are proving that he is not. That's according to the meaning of the word "trustworthy." If I told you I would feed your cat when you are on vacation and I didn't do it and your cat died, would you call me trustworthy? Of course not. Why then do you think that God is trustworthy? What can he be trusted to do?

As for "spiritual" - that's not a well-defined word. I'm not a materialist so I don't see any reason to divide the world into "spirit vs. matter". I'm a naturalist. If there is something which you call "spirit" it probably is just an aspect of nature. How would you know if it were not? It's all just a matter of definition ... and presupposition if you hold to the matter/spirit dichotomy.

Well, that was invigorating! Thanks! I look forward to talking more.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
01-21-2014, 10:33 PM
But what if it loses its savour?

Then it should be tossed out to be trampled under foot by men.



It makes think of Rashi's comment on Genesis 1:1,

Everything makes you think of Rashi's comments! :p




"taam" = taste.

That makes me think of my Spoke 9 - Tet article called A Taste of Honey (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Tet_Taste.php). The Tet verse of Alphabetic Psalm 34 is uniquely linked to the Ninth Book (1 Samuel):

Tet Verse (AV Psa 34:8) O taste (ta'am) and see (ra'ah) that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Tet - Book 9 (1 Samuel 14:29) Then said Jonathan, My father hath troubled the land: see (ra'ah), I pray you, how mine eyes have been enlightened, because I tasted (ta'am) a little of this honey. How much more, if haply the people had eaten freely to day of the spoil of their enemies which they found? for had there not been now a much greater slaughter among the Philistines?

Mystykal
01-22-2014, 01:57 AM
Hey there Mystykal,

I finally found some time to respond to your ever-interesting comments and insights. Which "facts" do you think I am "sidestepping"? It would help if you stated them explicitly so I would know how to answer.

As for the "issue of faith" - I don't know what you mean. Faith implies trust, and the one thing that everyone knows is that God cannot be actually TRUSTED to do anything for anyone in this life. The last time we talked about this you offered Roger Morneau as an example of "faith in action." When I looked him up on the internet, I had no choice but to conclude he was either an utter fraud or totally delusional. He claimed that he had been at a meeting of Satanists who bragged about deceiving the whole world except for one small group, the Seventh Day Adventists, because they held to the Sabbath (as if there were no other Sabbatarian groups)! And then he went on to say that the Satanists were plotting to deceive the world by teaching them to deny the specific cultic beliefs held by the SDA, such as the idea that people have an "immortal soul" that survives death. His stories are ludicrous. Utterly unbelievable. I'm sorry, no offense intended ... you know how I enjoy straight talk. :winking0071:


What was the thread you started? I probably missed it. Sorry. Post a link or name and I'll take a look.


I understand the concept of the wheat and tares growing up together, but that's not an answer to all questions. And it is based on the presumption of truth of the Bible which has yet to be established.

I do not "reject all things faith/spiritual" - it is a mistake to conflate those two ideas. I am totally into faith - it is the key to everything if properly understood. And how is it properly understood? As "trust" - and that's why it cannot be applied to the God concept. I know of nothing that anyone can trust God to actually do. If you know of something that can be demonstrated to be true - which is the real meaning of trustworthy! - then please prove to me that God is trustworthy. If you cannot demonstrate that God is trustworthy, then you are proving that he is not. That's according to the meaning of the word "trustworthy." If I told you I would feed your cat when you are on vacation and I didn't do it and your cat died, would you call me trustworthy? Of course not. Why then do you think that God is trustworthy? What can he be trusted to do?

As for "spiritual" - that's not a well-defined word. I'm not a materialist so I don't see any reason to divide the world into "spirit vs. matter". I'm a naturalist. If there is something which you call "spirit" it probably is just an aspect of nature. How would you know if it were not? It's all just a matter of definition ... and presupposition if you hold to the matter/spirit dichotomy.

Well, that was invigorating! Thanks! I look forward to talking more.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Hi Richard:

Thanks bro!:D I find your latest comments very interesting...

There is the link to my thread on faith...

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?4777-My-Faith-is-Built-On-Nothing-Less-Than


Your idea of faith is that it does not exist or apply to the GOD model or the Biblical god either!

You said:
"
"As for the issue of faith" - I don't know what you mean. Faith implies trust, and the one thing that everyone knows is that God cannot be actually TRUSTED to do anything for anyone in this life.

Malachi 3:9-11

King James Version (KJV)

"9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts."



So now you have a direct challenge from GOD so to speak to prove if the word is true. Have you ever tried? Have you followed the gematria of this verse and applied it to your life? I have. I keep records. When more than 100 homes burned to the ground in Northern CA in one of the biggest forest fires in recent history my house did not burn. Why? Well you might try to come up with a scientific explanation but...
The fire fighters who lived thru the fire standing under the eves of my house that I built said that when the 1000 gallon metal water tank exploded they knew they were next. The tank sat 50 feet from my front door. No piece of the tank was ever found. The fire even tried to burn the eves of the house. But the wood would not burn! The fire fighters said they had never seen anything like it - EVER! Now not only did my house not burn but my orchard did not burn as well! While all the other trees were burned to the ground! You are a skeptic I know. But I am living proof that if you will test GOD in the way that is demanded in the Word - you will always have your way protected and there will be no explanation from science or anything as to how it happens.

Faith when applied to real life will give you the proof you are looking for. The fact that many people appear not to have any real results and get no answers to their prayers is because they do not APPLY the rules of the game to their prayer requests!

I know it sounds odd to you - but I know the power of prayer! I know it seems like GOD does not fix things but if you ask in faith the answer will come and it will always be good!

As to the Spirit/physical world - I think the words can hold different meanings for different people. However in the process of building models which you do not like it seems - I suggest you drop the GOD model in your head and start over... looking for clues as to the real type of GOD which might actually exist... And you will find that it is a Spiritual experince! The Native Americans is a good place to start... Immerse yourself in the world of spirit and you cannot but be changed! :thumb:


Namaste,

Mystykal

duxrow
01-22-2014, 08:33 AM
But what if it loses its savour?

It makes think of Rashi's comment on Genesis 1:1, http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165#showrashi=true
"taam" = taste. On Genesis 1:11-12 Rashi commented:

Matthew 5:13 might well be about the same: Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
The Bread of Communion:
The milk of the Word comes first -- it's essential to the newborn child,
Next you spread the butter of the Word, after you've churned it a while..
The meat of the Word should follow, though it may be tough to chew,
and for desert there's honey -- a special sweetness from God to you..

When the Bible becomes so alive to you--like something you can taste,
Then you're into the honey, and the Bread of Life it will baste..
The bread we 'spred' is Living Bread, straight from the Book of Life,
Those who take the Communion of Christ are those he takes to Wife! Amen?

Rose
01-22-2014, 09:59 AM
Faith when applied to real life will give you the proof you are looking for. The fact that many people appear not to have any real results and get no answers to their prayers is because they do not APPLY the rules of the game to their prayer requests!

I know it sounds odd to you - but I know the power of prayer! I know it seems like GOD does not fix things but if you ask in faith the answer will come and it will always be good!

As to the Spirit/physical world - I think the words can hold different meanings for different people. However in the process of building models which you do not like it seems - I suggest you drop the GOD model in your head and start over... looking for clues as to the real type of GOD which might actually exist... And you will find that it is a Spiritual experince! The Native Americans is a good place to start... Immerse yourself in the world of spirit and you cannot but be changed! :thumb:


Namaste,

Mystykal





Hello Mystykal,


What about all the children of the world that are in desperate need of answered prayer, yet they do not know or understand how to apply the "Rules of the Game"?

Take care,
Rose

duxrow
01-22-2014, 10:33 AM
There are two sides to this story and it depends on which side we want to be.


Righteous
Unrighteous


follow God's instruction
rebel against instruction


the seed of the woman]
the seed of the serpent/devil/satan


the spiritual mind
the carnal mind


the Sons of God
the Daughters of Men


a prisoner of Christ
a prisoner of Satan


to be the "new" man
to be the "old" man



not to be of this world
to be of this world


to come out of Babylon
to stay in Babylon


the go into the marriage feast
to be left at the door


to be a faithful servant
to be a sluggard


Eternal Life
Eternal death


In the Kingdom of God
Excluded from the Kingdom of God



More can be added to the table. I have heard it said; we are what we watch. I have also heard it said; we become or get the product of the mind.
I know which side I am trying to stay on. All the best David
Good table, David, especially liked the Babylon ref, and
*Gen6:2 "The Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose".
Could this be happening again, you think?

Richard Amiel McGough
01-22-2014, 07:59 PM
Hi Richard:

Thanks bro!:D I find your latest comments very interesting...

There is the link to my thread on faith...

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?4777-My-Faith-is-Built-On-Nothing-Less-Than


Your idea of faith is that it does not exist or apply to the GOD model or the Biblical god either!

You said:
"

Malachi 3:9-11

King James Version (KJV)

"9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts."



So now you have a direct challenge from GOD so to speak to prove if the word is true. Have you ever tried? Have you followed the gematria of this verse and applied it to your life? I have. I keep records. When more than 100 homes burned to the ground in Northern CA in one of the biggest forest fires in recent history my house did not burn. Why? Well you might try to come up with a scientific explanation but...
The fire fighters who lived thru the fire standing under the eves of my house that I built said that when the 1000 gallon metal water tank exploded they knew they were next. The tank sat 50 feet from my front door. No piece of the tank was ever found. The fire even tried to burn the eves of the house. But the wood would not burn! The fire fighters said they had never seen anything like it - EVER! Now not only did my house not burn but my orchard did not burn as well! While all the other trees were burned to the ground! You are a skeptic I know. But I am living proof that if you will test GOD in the way that is demanded in the Word - you will always have your way protected and there will be no explanation from science or anything as to how it happens.

Faith when applied to real life will give you the proof you are looking for. The fact that many people appear not to have any real results and get no answers to their prayers is because they do not APPLY the rules of the game to their prayer requests!

I know it sounds odd to you - but I know the power of prayer! I know it seems like GOD does not fix things but if you ask in faith the answer will come and it will always be good!

As to the Spirit/physical world - I think the words can hold different meanings for different people. However in the process of building models which you do not like it seems - I suggest you drop the GOD model in your head and start over... looking for clues as to the real type of GOD which might actually exist... And you will find that it is a Spiritual experince! The Native Americans is a good place to start... Immerse yourself in the world of spirit and you cannot but be changed! :thumb:


Namaste,

Mystykal


Good evening my friend,

Thanks for the fascinating challenge. I will take it seriously, very seriously. So let us begin:

It appears that you are asserting that God will occasionally protect me (in random and unpredictable ways) if I consistently demonstrate "faith" in him. Your suggestion contains a most revealing asymmetry. Which party is proven to be actually trustworthy? The one who consistently pays tithes or the one who occasionally (if ever) fulfills his end of the bargain? If this is what you mean by "trustworthy" then I would like to make a deal with you. I promise to pay for whatever you could ever need (in a random and unpredictable way, and subject to my personal inscrutable judgment) if you consistently pay me one thousand dollars a week. Sound like a good deal?

Now more to the point: Your story of the fire entails the idea that any person who didn't suffer loss was protected by God. If you disagree, then you are admitting that your experience could have been random coincidence, just like all the non-believers who suffered no loss. Furthermore, if your story actually proves that God specially protected you because of your faith, then it necessarily implies that everyone who suffered loss were not right with God. This means we now have a TEST to discern between the "True Believers" and everyone else. Everyone God lets suffer are obviously not a true believers!

Now I'm pretty sure you know that is not true. So how does your particular experience prove that God was involved in anything? It doesn't. A Muslim in your position would attribute his luck to Allah. That's the problem with such anecdotes - they don't give anyone any way to discern between the competing gods and magical spells and New Age woowoo and just dumb luck. And the fact that such stories are told by people with directly contradictory beliefs is strong evidence that they are the product of cognitive bias. People would get the same results if they prayed to a milk jug. And beyond all this, it appears that your beliefs do not correspond to what the Bible actually teaches (although it is self-contradictory on this issue). Specifically, the Bible teaches that those who are right with God can expect to SUFFER in this world:

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Psalm 34:14 The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to and to slay such as be of upright conversation.

I could go on and on with citations. Haven't you ever heard of the martyrs? The Bible is filled with stories of the RIGHTEOUS losing EVERYTHING for their faith in Christ. You teach exactly the opposite, saying that your Secrets of Super Faith™ will make you rich and healthy and invincible. Are you really willing to blame every believer who loses their house or money or loved ones? Do you tell them that it was their fault because they didn't have your Secret Knowledge™ and don't know the right tricks to compel God to protect and heal them and their loved ones? What about little children that are raped and murdered? Did they lack the secrets of Super Faith? What about Joni Erickson Tada - is it her fault she's in a wheelchair cuz she just doesn't have enough faith? The problems with your beliefs are legion.

As you can see, I do not reject your teachings because I reject "faith/spirituality" out of hand, but rather because they appear to me to be the product of cognitive bias and are indistinguishable from a "get rich quick" scheme and New Age woowoo like The Secret™ that is sold to gullible people.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

David M
01-23-2014, 03:59 PM
Good table, David, especially liked the Babylon ref, and
*Gen6:2 "The Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose".
Could this be happening again, you think?

Hello Dux

Most likely it is, though who do you identify as the righteous and those who are unrighteous? The problem is seen when two people are metaphorically unequally yoked. It is like they are pulling in different directions. If one partner is earthy and the other is spiritual, then that is an unequal yoking. We are exhorted to be yoked with Jesus. Two partners yoked to Jesus stand the best chances of getting along and not departing from the faith.

The dilution of faith as a result of being drawn away, leads to the question of whether when Jesus returns; will he find "faith" or will he find "The (true)Faith" ? (Luke 18:8) Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

While there are some who are finding the truth and admit to having inherited lies (Jer 16:9) the same as in the time of Jeremiah, the number of antichrists today has most likely increased percentage-wise.

Until Christ returns and a theocracy is set up in which Christ reigns as king and reigns in righteousness with power and authority, the growth in the numbers of the righteous will not happen. In the process of healing the nations, Israel will be healed in full.

All the best
David

duxrow
01-23-2014, 05:24 PM
Hello Dux

Most likely it is, though who do you identify as the righteous and those who are unrighteous? The problem is seen when two people are metaphorically unequally yoked. It is like they are pulling in different directions. If one partner is earthy and the other is spiritual, then that is an unequal yoking. We are exhorted to be yoked with Jesus. Two partners yoked to Jesus stand the best chances of getting along and not departing from the faith.

Until Christ returns and a theocracy is set up in which Christ reigns as king and reigns in righteousness with power and authority, the growth in the numbers of the righteous will not happen. In the process of healing the nations, Israel will be healed in full. David
Glad its not my call, David, and fully expect MANY SURPRISES! In the meantime WE OCCUPY, and do our best.
Don't want to hear "I never knew you" !!

Gambini
01-23-2014, 09:45 PM
Greetings O RAM of WAR :pop2:

I noticed this comment you made to another poster ...

"The concept of a "creator of time and space" is logically incoherent because a being outside of time could not "do" anything because acts entail time which didn't exist yet. Such a creator could not create, by definition"

This is simply a bare assertion that ignores the facts ...

1) The universe ITSELF is terrifyingly beyond our comprehension. Do you realize that quantum mechanics reveals that every atom in the universe somehow "knows" where every other atom in the universe is located? How is that NOT insane??? So if the universe ITSELF has seemingly bizarre attributes, then how much more so would the attributes of the very SOURCE of the universe appear incredible to us? Clearly you cannot rule out the real possibility of a being THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS with seemingly bizarre attributes (according to our present understanding). HOWEVER, you CAN rule out the possibility of NOTHINGNESS ever creating anything because NOTHINGNESS has no attributes to begin with! See the difference???

2) We actually HAVE a myriad of examples IN THE REAL WORLD of cause/effect relationships existing SIMULTANEOUSLY (where there is no flow of time BETWEEN the cause and the effect). For example, if I hold an object up in my hand, my hand is the CAUSE of that object being held up and the object being held up is the EFFECT of me holding it up (the cause and effect is actualized SIMULTANEOUSLY with no linear time BETWEEN the two). Another example is a chandelier. There are literally a myriad of examples one can find IN THE REAL WORLD of a SIMULTANEOUS relationship between causes and effects.

3) The very FACT that the evidence points to a creation ex nihilo event for the origin of time, space, matter and energy is ITSELF evidence that an eternally existing reality DOES have the potentiality to initiate creation from an atemporal state. Unless you want to argue that NOTHINGNESS can create everything, which is a trillion times more absurd than an eternally existing intelligence (of a higher order) initiating creation from an atemporal state. At least we have an eternally existing reality to initiate creation in the first place while you have NONBEING creating BEING (the most irrational position one can possibly hold)! And don't give me the line about "We don't know if the universe ultimately had a beginning". BULLSHIT! THAT is THE consensus view (based on the EVIDENCE) of virtually all the top physicists today. Even the top ATHEIST physicists GRANT that the EVIDENCE supports a LITERAL creation of the universe from LITERALLY nothing (That's why you have ppl like Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Alexander Vilenkin writing ENTIRE BOOKS arguing this very position)! So don't act like the EVIDENCE isn't in favor of a LITERAL beginning of time, space, matter and energy.

Anyways ... I realize this is a bit off topic. I just wanted to respond to that assertion you made:p

Hey ... Did you hear about the new paper by Hameroff and Penrose??? Materialism is DEAD! We now know that there are quantum vibrations in the microtubules inside brain neurons, which suggests that the mind of man is rooted in the quantum realm and interacts with the physical world through the brain (which is the control center of the body). The evidence is given in detail in the new paper. Penrose states "The evidence now CLEARLY supports Orch OR". That's an exact quote. Here's another quote by Hameroff ... "Orch OR is THE most rigorous, comprehensive and successfully-tested theory of consciousness ever put forth". As you know, Orch OR views the MIND as FUNDAMENTAL (not arising from matter).

May you know more SHALOMliness :pray:

BINI

Richard Amiel McGough
01-23-2014, 10:25 PM
Greetings O RAM of WAR :pop2:

RAM of WAR - awesome! You really come up with some gambunctious titles for me. Thanks!




I noticed this comment you made to another poster ...

"The concept of a "creator of time and space" is logically incoherent because a being outside of time could not "do" anything because acts entail time which didn't exist yet. Such a creator could not create, by definition"

This is simply a bare assertion that ignores the facts ...

1) The universe ITSELF is terrifyingly beyond our comprehension. Do you realize that quantum mechanics reveals that every atom in the universe somehow "knows" where every other atom in the universe is located? How is that NOT insane??? So if the universe ITSELF has seemingly bizarre attributes, then how much more so would the attributes of the very SOURCE of the universe appear incredible to us? Clearly you cannot rule out the real possibility of a being THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS with seemingly bizarre attributes (according to our present understanding). HOWEVER, you CAN rule out the possibility of NOTHINGNESS ever creating anything because NOTHINGNESS has no attributes to begin with! See the difference???

2) We actually HAVE a myriad of examples IN THE REAL WORLD of cause/effect relationships existing SIMULTANEOUSLY (where there is no flow of time BETWEEN the cause and the effect). For example, if I hold an object up in my hand, my hand is the CAUSE of that object being held up and the object being held up is the EFFECT of me holding it up (the cause and effect is actualized SIMULTANEOUSLY with no linear time BETWEEN the two). Another example is a chandelier. There are literally a myriad of examples one can find IN THE REAL WORLD of a SIMULTANEOUS relationship between causes and effects.

3) The very FACT that the evidence points to a creation ex nihilo event for the origin of time, space, matter and energy is ITSELF evidence that an eternally existing reality DOES have the potentiality to initiate creation from an atemporal state. Unless you want to argue that NOTHINGNESS can create everything, which is a trillion times more absurd than an eternally existing intelligence (of a higher order) initiating creation from an atemporal state. At least we have an eternally existing reality to initiate creation in the first place while you have NONBEING creating BEING (the most irrational position one can possibly hold)! And don't give me the line about "We don't know if the universe ultimately had a beginning". BULLSHIT! THAT is THE consensus view (based on the EVIDENCE) of virtually all the top physicists today. Even the top ATHEIST physicists GRANT that the EVIDENCE supports a LITERAL creation of the universe from LITERALLY nothing (That's why you have ppl like Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Alexander Vilenkin writing ENTIRE BOOKS arguing this very position)! So don't act like the EVIDENCE isn't in favor of a LITERAL beginning of time, space, matter and energy.

Anyways ... I realize this is a bit off topic. I just wanted to respond to that assertion you made:p

Very interesting response! You are likening a timeless and spaceless being to the way things existing in time and space relate to each other? Nice try, but it's only an analogy at best and so it does actually prove anything. And of course your anthropomorphic description of non-locality as atoms "knowing" things is entirely inaccurate since knowing entails consciousness. I do get your point but I don't think it overcomes the absurdity of positing a being outside of time that can do anything such as changing from a state of not-having-created-the-universe to a state of having-created-the-universe. That concept is logically incoherent. Now if you want to press it then there is no meaning to logic and I would be justified to reject everything you say merely because it's just incoherent fantasy. In short, if you have to reject logic to make room for your God, there is no reason to bother trying to convince anyone of anything.

As for creation ex nihilo - we don't know anything like that. You are just reveling in your cognitive bias again. You accept anything from cosmology that you think fits your beliefs, and reject everything from the rest of science that proves your beliefs false, such as evolution. You bias is plain as day but you can't see it even when I point it out to you. You have one standard of "truth" - if it fits with what you want to believe, you accept it. If it does not, you reject it. I just watched a video about William Lane Craig which shows how he is totally lost in delusion and has made a career teaching others how to be deluded, all the while pretending to be a philosopher! Wow. Here it is:


http://youtu.be/Q78ahkiMtFk



Hey ... Did you hear about the new paper by Hameroff and Penrose??? Materialism is DEAD! We now know that there are quantum vibrations in the microtubules inside brain neurons, which suggests that the mind of man is rooted in the quantum realm and interacts with the physical world through the brain (which is the control center of the body). The evidence is given in detail in the new paper. Penrose states "The evidence now CLEARLY supports Orch OR". That's an exact quote. Here's another quote by Hameroff ... "Orch OR is THE most rigorous, comprehensive and successfully-tested theory of consciousness ever put forth". As you know, Orch OR views the MIND as FUNDAMENTAL (not arising from matter).

May you know more SHALOMliness :pray:

BINI
Dude! I'm not a materialist. That's a metaphysical position that I see no need to adopt.

As for the microtubules - there you go again. Grasping at straws. There is no scientific consensus about their theory. On the contrary, few accept it as an explanation of consciousness. But if they are correct, then materialism has a better chance, because they are giving a MATERIALISTIC explanation of consciousness. That's what the PHYSICS in "quantum physics" refers to - material reality. There is no such thing as the "quantum realm" separate from physical reality. You make all these wild excited claims about things of which you know little.

Best to the Bini,

Richard

David M
01-24-2014, 02:50 AM
I appreciate both sides of the discussion going on at the moment between Gambini and Richard and it is the truth or common ground of understanding that has to reached. I am just adding some thoughts of my own by way of trying to make sense of these things.

My response to the statement; "every atom knows the position of every other atom", is this; no two atoms can occupy the same space at the same time. An atom (comprising of sub-atomic particles) does not have conciousness; an atom only has existence and the atom conforms to physical laws. If an atom could know anything it would have to be this; it cannot occupy a space at the same time another atom is occupying that space. Whatever is the basis for subatomic particles, the same applies to those particles.


The word "eternity" used in translation has only been used once in the Bible (KJV) (Isaiah 57:15) For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,

In our universe, the one thing that appears eternal is basic energy. Mass and energy, so we understand, are interchangeable. The entropy of the universe is increasing. The conclusion we draw from this (without God), is that the ultimate state of the universe will revert back to total basic energy. I can only conclude that energy and God are linked and both are eternal and both inhabit eternity.

Something must have caused energy to convert into mass in the first place. The cause is defined as God. Behind the cause is intelligence. Nothing is designed unless there is an intelligence behind it. Atoms have the appearance of design. The problem we have is; we are the result of an intelligence, though we have a problem understanding what that intelligence is, because we have limited intelligence oureselves. Our inability to understand what a higher intelligence consists of can make us go insane. For this reason, I am reminded of something another member has recently quoted from Ps 46:10; Be still, and know that I am God:

Through his word, God is telling us to stay calm and do not go insane. If we come to the conclusion (hence know) God exists, it is up to us to know about God. We can only do that by knowing what God has revealed to us about himself. The same as we can say of ourselves; "I exist", so God says the same of himself; "I AM".

Unless I have faith in God, my existence could be very short. I have faith in the supreme intelligence that promises eternal life to those who God selects to dwell with him in eternity. That means some of the basic energy that once existed, God has transformed and will never revert to basic energy again. That means that the apparently increasing entropy of the universe, under the control of God, will never result in the total universe reverting back to basic energy.




David

Mystykal
01-25-2014, 11:37 PM
Hello Mystykal,


What about all the children of the world that are in desperate need of answered prayer, yet they do not know or understand how to apply the "Rules of the Game"?

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

I would say that you are ASSUMING little children that suffer are being ignored by GOD. I would also say that suffering in this world is a result of the EVIL in the world.... As you know Jesus said suffering and persecution are a part of the puzzle. But GOD is the judge...

Romans 12:19
New International Version
"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. "

So if the Bible has taught us anything it is that the system will be fixed in time...Death is not the end for children or anyone per se. The Great Mystery Spirit will make all things right. Hard to accept sometimes I know...

Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
01-25-2014, 11:52 PM
Good evening my friend,

Thanks for the fascinating challenge. I will take it seriously, very seriously. So let us begin:

It appears that you are asserting that God will occasionally protect me (in random and unpredictable ways) if I consistently demonstrate "faith" in him. Your suggestion contains a most revealing asymmetry. Which party is proven to be actually trustworthy? The one who consistently pays tithes or the one who occasionally (if ever) fulfills his end of the bargain? If this is what you mean by "trustworthy" then I would like to make a deal with you. I promise to pay for whatever you could ever need (in a random and unpredictable way, and subject to my personal inscrutable judgment) if you consistently pay me one thousand dollars a week. Sound like a good deal?

Now more to the point: Your story of the fire entails the idea that any person who didn't suffer loss was protected by God. If you disagree, then you are admitting that your experience could have been random coincidence, just like all the non-believers who suffered no loss. Furthermore, if your story actually proves that God specially protected you because of your faith, then it necessarily implies that everyone who suffered loss were not right with God. This means we now have a TEST to discern between the "True Believers" and everyone else. Everyone God lets suffer are obviously not a true believers!

Now I'm pretty sure you know that is not true. So how does your particular experience prove that God was involved in anything? It doesn't. A Muslim in your position would attribute his luck to Allah. That's the problem with such anecdotes - they don't give anyone any way to discern between the competing gods and magical spells and New Age woowoo and just dumb luck. And the fact that such stories are told by people with directly contradictory beliefs is strong evidence that they are the product of cognitive bias. People would get the same results if they prayed to a milk jug. And beyond all this, it appears that your beliefs do not correspond to what the Bible actually teaches (although it is self-contradictory on this issue). Specifically, the Bible teaches that those who are right with God can expect to SUFFER in this world:

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Psalm 34:14 The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to and to slay such as be of upright conversation.

I could go on and on with citations. Haven't you ever heard of the martyrs? The Bible is filled with stories of the RIGHTEOUS losing EVERYTHING for their faith in Christ. You teach exactly the opposite, saying that your Secrets of Super Faith™ will make you rich and healthy and invincible. Are you really willing to blame every believer who loses their house or money or loved ones? Do you tell them that it was their fault because they didn't have your Secret Knowledge™ and don't know the right tricks to compel God to protect and heal them and their loved ones? What about little children that are raped and murdered? Did they lack the secrets of Super Faith? What about Joni Erickson Tada - is it her fault she's in a wheelchair cuz she just doesn't have enough faith? The problems with your beliefs are legion.

As you can see, I do not reject your teachings because I reject "faith/spirituality" out of hand, but rather because they appear to me to be the product of cognitive bias and are indistinguishable from a "get rich quick" scheme and New Age woowoo like The Secret™ that is sold to gullible people.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Hi Richard:
You make me laugh so much!:lol: You forgot one thing! Luck like fate does not exist! So all your arguments about paying tithe and trusting GOD to get a RANDOM result is laughable. I understand you would like to dismiss all strange unknown actions as just luck... But in the Spirit world luck is NOT an option. And if you do "take my challenge" seriously you would not be writing it off as just a blip on the mathematical landscape of luck. In time all things will become clear. If your heart is in the right place I am sure we will be great friends then. I really like talking to you!:thumb:

And faith is not a "Christian" thing! Faith can be developed in a Roman soldier as well! I think you know that!


Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
01-26-2014, 04:18 PM
Hi Rose:

I would say that you are ASSUMING little children that suffer are being ignored by GOD. I would also say that suffering in this world is a result of the EVIL in the world.... As you know Jesus said suffering and persecution are a part of the puzzle. But GOD is the judge...

Romans 12:19
New International Version
"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. "

So if the Bible has taught us anything it is that the system will be fixed in time...Death is not the end for children or anyone per se. The Great Mystery Spirit will make all things right. Hard to accept sometimes I know...

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hello Mystykal

My comments were in reference to your claim of god sparing your house from fire because you had faith and knew the rules of the game. Don't you think that a child's well being is infinitely more important then your material goods?

The only thing that the Bible has really taught us is that god is not trustworthy, and cannot be depended on to answer prayer.

Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
01-26-2014, 11:35 PM
Hello Mystykal

My comments were in reference to your claim of god sparing your house from fire because you had faith and knew the rules of the game. Don't you think that a child's well being is infinitely more important then your material goods?

The only thing that the Bible has really taught us is that god is not trustworthy, and cannot be depended on to answer prayer.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:
I do not follow your logic. The comparison of saving a child's life or saving a house is NOT in question! The "rules of the game" ARE! Once again you Assume that "saving" a child or healing a child is the ultimate good and everything else does not matter. I suggest to you that like a game of chess the Bible lays out a set of rules and standards which if understood will produce results which are measurable....

That was the original assertion under discussion. It is NOT about why children are allowed to suffer in a wicked world. That is NOT GOD's fault as if GOD is some kind of Jin in a bottle which grants wishes on demand. Your view of GOD is not one based on any spiritual experience. Therefore, your conclusions are without basis as GOD is a Spirit and "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned." The meditative process is real and brings the mind into a full understanding of the unknown. It is a process used by many sages and wisdom keepers. I don't understand your anger or emotional discontent with all things spirit based. Maybe that is an area which brings you much saddness. I will just let that be... As Rumi the mystic once said, "...Darkness is your candle!"


Namaste,

Mystykal

David M
01-27-2014, 05:39 AM
Here are some of my thoughts having read the recent posts.

God has many attributes, qualities and emotions. God is an avenger, yet God loves. God is compassionate, yet looks on suffering and appears to do nothing. God prescribes punishment, yet shows mercy. We are undeserving, yet receive God's grace.

In Genesis we are told(Gen 6:5); And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Do we ever think of God can cry? That verse evokes the human sentiment of sadness. At times of great emotion, whether it be love, compassion, or fear, crying is a way of venting that emotion and it makes others see what we are really experiencing.

With God, I see him as a loving father with these same qualities as a human. That is anthropomorphism. Whilst we can see God in this way, we also have to see God as The Righteous Judge. In that capacity, the same as any judge in a court of law, the judge cannot let emotion rule his judgement. It is the law that rules. Now a human judge can prescribe penalties within a range set by the law makers. For an example, if the penalty has been prescribed as ranging from 5 to 10 years in jail, the judge has to set a tariff within that range. The judge might show leniency and only prescribe a 5-year sentence, when the rest of the population might expect a 10-year sentence to be set. The judge is not allowed to let the criminal get off free without the minimum sentence being set.

Can you imagine a human judge having to sentence his own son? That would probably not be allowed and a conflict of interest would mean another judge has to be assigned. In the case of God, The Righteous Judge, there was no other judge until Jesus came along and now all judgement has been given into his hand.

We have to see God in OT times in the role of the Righteous Judge and also as a Heavenly Father to his people. On one occasion, we see how God pleads with his people to repent, but Israel did not, and therefore God had to bring about the penalty he had warned his people of. In that, we see the fairness of God by giving a warning to the people and the time and opportunity to repent before carrying through his sentence. We are under the same sentence of eternal death, unless we repent.

It is an ambivalent subject to think of the justice of God. That is evident from the different responses shown on this forum to the stories on record in the OT that tell us of the mass killings which took place. In fairness, we have to consider every detail we are told, and we should not let our heart rule our head.

There is no escaping the fact that the nations Israel were told to destroy and rid the promised land of, were people God hated for what those people did. Idolatry, and infant sacrifice to gods of stone was hated by God. To most non-religious people today, child sacrifice is not acceptable. However, we do not know of all the evil practices that are committed today behind closed doors. Those type of people such as the Canaanite, were beyond redemption. They would not listen or repent and so God's judgement we can say came on them sooner than later. Because God's people did not follow instruction, and some of the people were not killed, those people became the snare God said they would be. Nevertheless, God knowing the future better than man is able to predict, is able to deal with any outcome. God had to deal with the failings of his chosen people. God did not give up on his own people and we see how Israel were fickle and easily persuaded by the type of King that ruled over them.

However much we might think we know what we would do if we were in God's situation, our judgement is nowhere near as good as God's. We simply cannot know all the facts and the resulting outcomes and be in a position to deal with all the different outcomes. We are mistaken and deluded, if we think we can judge better than God is able to judge.

If we did not know what the outcome of the story was, would we ever have thought Rahab (often referred to as a harlot, but more likely a business woman), a Canaanite woman, would have been in the genealogy leading up to Jesus?

The story of Rahab goes to show us that despite God having chosen the descendants of Abraham to be a special people ( a people God will never cast off entirely), the Gentiles or non-Israelites were just as acceptable in the sight of God so long as they showed faith in him. Rahab showed that faith when all her peers did not. Her peers could not say, they had not heard. Rahab declares (Josh 2:9); And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. 10 For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. 11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath. We should not think it was only Rahab who had heard, but it was only Rahab who believed and was on God's side.

Rahab is a testament to the unbiased judgement of God and to those who say God is biased against women. Rahab is amongst the greatest people of faith named in the Bible.



David

Rose
01-27-2014, 01:17 PM
Hi Rose:
I do not follow your logic. The comparison of saving a child's life or saving a house is NOT in question! The "rules of the game" ARE! Once again you Assume that "saving" a child or healing a child is the ultimate good and everything else does not matter. I suggest to you that like a game of chess the Bible lays out a set of rules and standards which if understood will produce results which are measurable....

That was the original assertion under discussion. It is NOT about why children are allowed to suffer in a wicked world. That is NOT GOD's fault as if GOD is some kind of Jin in a bottle which grants wishes on demand. Your view of GOD is not one based on any spiritual experience. Therefore, your conclusions are without basis as GOD is a Spirit and "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned." The meditative process is real and brings the mind into a full understanding of the unknown. It is a process used by many sages and wisdom keepers. I don't understand your anger or emotional discontent with all things spirit based. Maybe that is an area which brings you much saddness. I will just let that be... As Rumi the mystic once said, "...Darkness is your candle!"


Namaste,

Mystykal

Hello Mystykal,

Fairness and justice is what I strive for and that is preciously why I see what you call the "Rules of the game" as unjust and unfair. This so-called set of rules and standards that you say the Bible lays out are only assessable to a select few who possess spiritual understanding. The reason I brought up children is because they are dependent on others for their health and protection, they do not have faith to be healed, or have knowledge of the "Rules of the game". So, if understanding a specific set of rules is what is required for answered prayer, then that is totally unfair to children who are in need.


Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
01-27-2014, 11:57 PM
Hello Mystykal,

Fairness and justice is what I strive for and that is preciously why I see what you call the "Rules of the game" as unjust and unfair. This so-called set of rules and standards that you say the Bible lays out are only assessable to a select few who possess spiritual understanding. The reason I brought up children is because they are dependent on others for their health and protection, they do not have faith to be healed, or have knowledge of the "Rules of the game". So, if understanding a specific set of rules is what is required for answered prayer, then that is totally unfair to children who are in need.


Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

Fairness is NOT the issue! The story of killing the first born of Egypt is hardly "fair". I agree with you from a human perspective that WE would like little innocent children to be spared all pain and ill which is wreaked on the world. But the "rules of the game" do not appear to be written that way. In the story of Job we see disaster take his children as if as no fault of their own. And all the things that happened to Job was NOT his fault either! He was a "righteous" man... So it would appear that children before the age of accountability are under their parent's ability to protect to a point but the ultimate and final decision is in GOD's hands - according to the Bible. I know that is a hard concept to accept but... it appears from beginning to end and it would appear that to this day lots of things happen which no one can explain with any human rationale. We must have faith... in the final outcome which has yet to be written by GOD.

Namaste,

Mystykal

David M
01-28-2014, 01:23 AM
Hi Rose:

Faitness is NOT the issue! The story of killing the first born of Egypt is hardly "fair". I agree with you from a human perspective that WE would like little innocent children to be spared all pain and ill which is wreaked on the world. But the "rules of the game" do not appear to be written that way. In the story of Job we see disaster take his children as if as no fault of their own. And all the things that happened to Job was NOT his fault either! He was a "righteous" man... So it would appear that children before the age of accountability are under their parent's ability to protect to a point but the ultimate and final decision is in GOD's hands - according to the Bible. I know that is a hard concept to accept but... it appears from beginning to end and it would appear that to this day lots of things happen which no one can explain with any human rationale. We must have faith... in the final outcome which has yet to be written by GOD.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Understanding the The Book of Job correctly should lead us to see that whilst God tests Job to prove to human jealousy that Job would pass the test, God had to push Job to the limit. The lesson that Job had to learn was to overcome human pride which defeated him in the end, unlike Jesus who did not succumb to it.

One factor that cannot be ignored is God's ability to raise people from the dead. It might seem unjust to end a life short as in the case of Job's children, but what is that when compared with eternal life to which they could be restored?

Job had everything restored to him double-fold after his test, except his children. Job went on to have exactly the same number of children after his test. It perhaps dawned on Job as it seems to fail us to realize that Job will be reunited with all his children in the Kingdom and will have double-fold in the end.

When you consider all the blessings which Job had, his test only lasted for around 6 months and considering Job lived for 200 years, Job's test only represented 0.5% of his life.

At the end of the Book of Job, God does not come out the villain, even though God brought all the suffering on Job. In the end, not only is Job restored to full health and given twice as much as he had at the beginning, his three friends we can conclude were saved in the process. In the end, not only were Job's three friends saved, but all of Job's children would be saved and his wife would be saved.

It seems that those who want to accuse God of being immoral, do not have any regard for the salvation and eternal life which God gives and which is on offer to us all. If anyone thinks it is unjust of God to kill someone and is used as their excuse for not believing in him, then they should think it very just of God to give that person eternal life. However, that might not sit comfortable with that person, for it takes away that person's excuse. Alas, human pride (which is enmity with God) rules in that person's heart and they will not accept the evidence that God is not the monster they claim, but The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.

duxrow
01-28-2014, 09:59 AM
Job had everything restored to him double-fold after his test, except his children. Job went on to have exactly the same number of children after his test. It perhaps dawned on Job as it seems to fail us to realize that Job will be reunited with all his children in the Kingdom and will have double-fold in the end.
Bothered me, David, that Job's first family perished, until I see the "double-dip" focus, after noting that ALL THE FIRSTBORN DIE! -- so we MUST
be born-again..

Now, since there's no refuting the prominence of the 22 of scripture, will our 44th Prez figure? :eek:

Rose
01-28-2014, 10:12 AM
Hi Rose:

Fairness is NOT the issue! The story of killing the first born of Egypt is hardly "fair". I agree with you from a human perspective that WE would like little innocent children to be spared all pain and ill which is wreaked on the world. But the "rules of the game" do not appear to be written that way. In the story of Job we see disaster take his children as if as no fault of their own. And all the things that happened to Job was NOT his fault either! He was a "righteous" man... So it would appear that children before the age of accountability are under their parent's ability to protect to a point but the ultimate and final decision is in GOD's hands - according to the Bible. I know that is a hard concept to accept but... it appears from beginning to end and it would appear that to this day lots of things happen which no one can explain with any human rationale. We must have faith... in the final outcome which has yet to be written by GOD.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hello Mystykal,

Ah, but fairness IS the issue! Because the Bible is BIASED, UNJUST and UNFAIR is preciously why we know that it is MAN MADE. There is absolutely no reason to have faith in a god based on the bad evidence that the Bible presents. The Bible is filled with falsehoods, contradictions, errors. It tells us to trust in its god and blindly accept his teachings ... why should we? The god of the Bible fails to be trustworthy and fails to help the children that Jesus swore to protect. Even the book of Job screams of the untrustworthiness and unjustness of god! Who in their right mind would ever think that children could be replaced like furniture?

Why should a person have faith in a book that is filled with superstitions? Biased men who thought they were superior to women wrote the Bible. Out of the imaginings of their minds, they posited a male god made in their own image to rule over them. There is no reason on earth that modern intelligent people should believe the ramblings of those primitive men, let alone try and justify their words.

Take care,
Rose

David M
01-29-2014, 04:26 AM
Bothered me, David, that Job's first family perished, until I see the "double-dip" focus, after noting that ALL THE FIRSTBORN DIE! -- so we MUST
be born-again..

Now, since there's no refuting the prominence of the 22 of scripture, will our 44th Prez figure? :eek:

Hello Dux

We can see by God's actions, he restored to Job that which was was prescribed in the law given to Moses.
For example; (Ex 22:4) If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.
The same goes for possessions.

In typical fashion, people get jealous of people who have riches, which is the reason for God taking those thoughts of Job's friends and empowering those thoughts to give them substance whereby to test Job.

Zacchaeus, at the time of Jesus, was regarded as a robber and a thief because he was a publican. He is described as Chief among the publicans (Luke 19v2 ) and therefore the greatest of thieves and robbers.

In contrast to public thinking, Zacchaeus put those people to shame by the things Zacchaeus did. Zacchaeus can be seen to give double the amount prescribed in the law given to Moses. (Luke 19:8) And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

The only other occurrence of the word fourfold, I find in 2 Sam 12:6 where David pronounces his verdict on the man in the story told him by Nathan. As we know, Nathan was talking about King David himself. (2 Sam 12:6) And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.
Could it be that Zacchaeus knew this story and was willing to do what King David thought was justice?


Whether our life span is the average of 70 years, or 120 years, or in the case of Methuselah, 969 years, compare that age span with eternal life and the restoration becomes infinityfold.


All the best
David

Mystykal
01-29-2014, 06:43 AM
Hello Mystykal,

Ah, but fairness IS the issue! Because the Bible is BIASED, UNJUST and UNFAIR is preciously why we know that it is MAN MADE. There is absolutely no reason to have faith in a god based on the bad evidence that the Bible presents. The Bible is filled with falsehoods, contradictions, errors. It tells us to trust in its god and blindly accept his teachings ... why should we? The god of the Bible fails to be trustworthy and fails to help the children that Jesus swore to protect. Even the book of Job screams of the untrustworthiness and unjustness of god! Who in their right mind would ever think that children could be replaced like furniture?

Why should a person have faith in a book that is filled with superstitions? Biased men who thought they were superior to women wrote the Bible. Out of the imaginings of their minds, they posited a male god made in their own image to rule over them. There is no reason on earth that modern intelligent people should believe the ramblings of those primitive men, let alone try and justify their words.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:
I appreciare your thoughts... I want to divert for a second and make an observation. You are opposed to the death penalty but you seem to be ok with locking up innocent people on death row forever! You call it life in prison. I work at a prison... I do not think an innocent person would want to spend fifty or sixty years in a place that is so crazy bad! That is torture. Yes if we put to death innocent people it is bad too. But the US Constittution allows for that type of penalty. The problem with man-made laws is that they are man made! I think your idea of less leathal acts are "better" than death is a warped view of life! Since you do not believe in GOD or eternal life with GOD in heaven or in a perfect world I see your point. But if an innocent dies in a wrong way the good Lord will restore him at the right time. And in death there is no pain. Nothing. A much better way to be than tortured raped and beaten up in prison as an innocent,

My point is that your opinion of FAIRNESS is anything but! Your idea that you are the one who decides what is right and wrong based on your interpretation of the golden rule is insane! YOU do not like religious people to tell you what is right and wrong - so why do you try and tell me or anyone that the death penalty is WRONG!? You seem to think that your rule is right and everyone else including GOD is wrong! I really don't see how you do that....

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
01-29-2014, 03:00 PM
Hi Rose:
I appreciare your thoughts... I want to divert for a second and make an observation. You are opposed to the death penalty but you seem to be ok with locking up innocent people on death row forever! You call it life in prison. I work at a prison... I do not think an innocent person would want to spend fifty or sixty years in a place that is so crazy bad! That is torture. Yes if we put to death innocent people it is bad too. But the US Constittution allows for that type of penalty. The problem with man-made laws is that they are man made! I think your idea of less leathal acts are "better" than death is a warped view of life! Since you do not believe in GOD or eternal life with GOD in heaven or in a perfect world I see your point. But if an innocent dies in a wrong way the good Lord will restore him at the right time. And in death there is no pain. Nothing. A much better way to be than tortured raped and beaten up in prison as an innocent.

Hello Mystykal

I am shocked! :eek: What ever gave you such an insanely crazy idea that I'm OK with locking innocent people up? But at least if an innocent person gets wrongly convicted and sent to prison he can try to prove his innocence ... something he can't do if he's dead!


My point is that your opinion of FAIRNESS is anything but! Your idea that you are the one who decides what is right and wrong based on your interpretation of the golden rule is insane! YOU do not like religious people to tell you what is right and wrong - so why do you try and tell me or anyone that the death penalty is WRONG!? You seem to think that your rule is right and everyone else including GOD is wrong! I really don't see how you do that....

Namaste,


Mystykal

What is wrong with your thinking? I'm not the one who's deciding what is right or wrong, that decision is based on what we all share ... being human! Your human rights are the same as my human rights, what violates my human rights, violates your human rights also. The scale of justice is applied equally to all because we are human, not because of the arbitrary whims of a mythical god.

Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
02-01-2014, 02:02 AM
Hello Mystykal

I am shocked! :eek: What ever gave you such an insanely crazy idea that I'm OK with locking innocent people up? But at least if an innocent person gets wrongly convicted and sent to prison he can try to prove his innocence ... something he can't do if he's dead!



What is wrong with your thinking? I'm not the one who's deciding what is right or wrong, that decision is based on what we all share ... being human! Your human rights are the same as my human rights, what violates my human rights, violates your human rights also. The scale of justice is applied equally to all because we are human, not because of the arbitrary whims of a mythical god.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

You did not really address the issue! If you do not believe in the JUSTICE of the death penalty then you MUST admit you are ok with innocents living in a "hell" for sixty to seventy years! How is that MORE FAIR than being killed and having no suffering for a moment in time and then being reborn in a Paradise world?! It is true if they are alive they can try to prove their innocense... but they still are living and getting hurt and being abused while in a living hell...



The scale of justice is applied equally to all because we are human,

Are you suggesting that justice is applied automatically? How? That is impossible... Humans set up courts and laws and APPLY justice UNEQUALLY! You make no sense... I know you keep acting like justice is inate. But the application of justice is anything but!!:eek: Think about it... If justice was innate then all the world would agree on the punishment and legal system of justice and all courts would dole out the penalty in the same way. But that NEVER happens! Humans do a terrible job at applying justice equally! Why? Because they use different interpretations of the laws and create justice based on their own ideas instead of ONE StANDARD of Natural Law!
Notice I did not say anything about a god!



The scale of justice is applied equally to all because we are human, not because of the arbitrary whims of a mythical god.

You really do not get to have it both ways! Either laws are innate or they are not. Justice is NOT innate! So your Golden Rule is your rule! Not any rule! My golden rule includes the death penalty. Yours does not! Why? Because you think that death is not part of the rules! But the US Constitution says it is part of Natural Law. And of course the Bible is full of death penalty type stories... So the real issue is not a mythical god but the basis for Natrual Law as observed in nature. And clearly death is everywhere metered out on the weak the sick and the helpless. The law of the jungle is alive and well.

I think once you give up GOD and Spirit you lose your compass to know right and wrong in a meaningful way...
... but that is just my opinion.:pray:


Namaste,


Mystykal

Richard Amiel McGough
02-01-2014, 10:38 AM
You did not really address the issue! If you do not believe in the JUSTICE of the death penalty then you MUST admit you are ok with innocents living in a "hell" for sixty to seventy years! How is that MORE FAIR than being killed and having no suffering for a moment in time and then being reborn in a Paradise world?! It is true if they are alive they can try to prove their innocense... but they still are living and getting hurt and being abused while in a living hell...

Hey there Mystykal,

Your assertion is altogether false. It is based on a false dichotomy. Rose and I are not OK with innocents being either imprisoned or killed. But if it must be one or the other, then it is obviously better to imprison than to kill because if we find that an error has been made it can be corrected. This has happened many times. The people who were released after being wrongly imprisoned would have been killed if society followed your logic.




The scale of justice is applied equally to all because we are human,
Are you suggesting that justice is applied automatically? How? That is impossible... Humans set up courts and laws and APPLY justice UNEQUALLY!

No one said anything about any "automatic application." It's like math. The principles are objective, but humans sometimes err when they apply them. But since the principles are objective, the errors can be corrected. Unless, of course, we do something irrevocable like KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE like you suggest would be "best."



You make no sense... I know you keep acting like justice is inate. But the application of justice is anything but!!:eek: Think about it... If justice was innate then all the world would agree on the punishment and legal system of justice and all courts would dole out the penalty in the same way. But that NEVER happens! Humans do a terrible job at applying justice equally! Why? Because they use different interpretations of the laws and create justice based on their own ideas instead of ONE StANDARD of Natural Law!
Notice I did not say anything about a god!

You seem to be confused about theory vs. practice. Again, it is like math. In theory, we have no trouble figuring out 1 + 2 = 3. But in practice, there are many complexifying factors, not least of which is our ignorance. We usually have to rely on witnesses with imperfect memories. We don't have everything on video. And there are conflicting motives, etc., etc., etc. None of these practical challenges have anything to do with the objective principles of morality, such as fairness and justice.

What exactly is the "natural law" of which you speak?




The scale of justice is applied equally to all because we are human, not because of the arbitrary whims of a mythical god.
You really do not get to have it both ways! Either laws are innate or they are not. Justice is NOT innate! So your Golden Rule is your rule! Not any rule! My golden rule includes the death penalty. Yours does not! Why? Because you think that death is not part of the rules! But the US Constitution says it is part of Natural Law. And of course the Bible is full of death penalty type stories... So the real issue is not a mythical god but the basis for Natrual Law as observed in nature. And clearly death is everywhere metered out on the weak the sick and the helpless. The law of the jungle is alive and well.

I think once you give up GOD and Spirit you lose your compass to know right and wrong in a meaningful way...
... but that is just my opinion.:pray:


Namaste,


Mystykal
Your comment that the death penalty is your "Golden Rule" is utterly insane. That is not what you would want to be done to you! You would want JUSTICE. You would want to be freed from prison.

Your assertion that death is part of the natural law that defines morality makes no sense to me. I understand that everyone dies, and I can understand how some societies might think that the death penalty fits the crime. But the world's morality has moved far beyond the primitive brutal "morality" of the Bible and now almost all advanced societies reject the death penalty. This is just another example of how atheist morality is much better than religious morality which really is not moral at all.

Great chatting!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Rose
02-01-2014, 10:58 AM
Hi Rose:

You did not really address the issue! If you do not believe in the JUSTICE of the death penalty then you MUST admit you are ok with innocents living in a "hell" for sixty to seventy years! How is that MORE FAIR than being killed and having no suffering for a moment in time and then being reborn in a Paradise world?! It is true if they are alive they can try to prove their innocense... but they still are living and getting hurt and being abused while in a living hell...

Hello Mystykal,

Are you actually suggesting that it is better for an innocent person in prison to be put to death because of the bad prison environment? What about all the innocent people in prisons who have been sentenced for lesser crimes that don't involve the death penalty? Should they be killed also? Your reasoning makes NO SENSE!



I'm not the one who's deciding what is right or wrong, that decision is based on what we all share ... being human! Your human rights are the same as my human rights, what violates my human rights, violates your human rights also. The scale of justice is applied equally to all because we are human, not because of the arbitrary whims of a mythical god.


Are you suggesting that justice is applied automatically? How? That is impossible... Humans set up courts and laws and APPLY justice UNEQUALLY! You make no sense... I know you keep acting like justice is inate. But the application of justice is anything but!!:eek: Think about it... If justice was innate then all the world would agree on the punishment and legal system of justice and all courts would dole out the penalty in the same way. But that NEVER happens! Humans do a terrible job at applying justice equally! Why? Because they use different interpretations of the laws and create justice based on their own ideas instead of ONE StANDARD of Natural Law!
Notice I did not say anything about a god!


You really do not get to have it both ways! Either laws are innate or they are not. Justice is NOT innate! So your Golden Rule is your rule! Not any rule! My golden rule includes the death penalty. Yours does not! Why? Because you think that death is not part of the rules! But the US Constitution says it is part of Natural Law. And of course the Bible is full of death penalty type stories... So the real issue is not a mythical god but the basis for Natrual Law as observed in nature. And clearly death is everywhere metered out on the weak the sick and the helpless. The law of the jungle is alive and well.

I think once you give up GOD and Spirit you lose your compass to know right and wrong in a meaningful way...
... but that is just my opinion.:pray:


Namaste,


Mystykal

If you took the time to read and understand exactly what I said you wouldn't be making such insane accusations and crazy statements! The scale of justice I was speaking of is that of EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS. What violate the integrity of my humanness also violates the integrity of your humanness, that is how I know if something is just and fair on the human scale. I was not talking about justice in terms of what type of punishment should be meted out.

I have never said the death penalty is wrong per-say. What I have said is that I don't believe in it because there is always the chance that an innocent person will be killed, and I don't think it's worth the risk of taking an innocent human life.

I think the Biblegod has caused you to lose your innate moral compass of right and wrong, because you must try and justify all the immoralities he decrees. Wrong becomes right simply because the Biblegod decreed it!

Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
02-02-2014, 02:00 AM
Hey there Mystykal,

Your assertion is altogether false. It is based on a false dichotomy. Rose and I are not OK with innocents being either imprisoned or killed. But if it must be one or the other, then it is obviously better to imprison than to kill because if we find that an error has been made it can be corrected. This has happened many times. The people who were released after being wrongly imprisoned would have been killed if society followed your logic.


No one said anything about any "automatic application." It's like math. The principles are objective, but humans sometimes err when they apply them. But since the principles are objective, the errors can be corrected. Unless, of course, we do something irrevocable like KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE like you suggest would be "best."


You seem to be confused about theory vs. practice. Again, it is like math. In theory, we have no trouble figuring out 1 + 2 = 3. But in practice, there are many complexifying factors, not least of which is our ignorance. We usually have to rely on witnesses with imperfect memories. We don't have everything on video. And there are conflicting motives, etc., etc., etc. None of these practical challenges have anything to do with the objective principles of morality, such as fairness and justice.

What exactly is the "natural law" of which you speak?


Your comment that the death penalty is your "Golden Rule" is utterly insane. That is not what you would want to be done to you! You would want JUSTICE. You would want to be freed from prison.

Your assertion that death is part of the natural law that defines morality makes no sense to me. I understand that everyone dies, and I can understand how some societies might think that the death penalty fits the crime. But the world's morality has moved far beyond the primitive brutal "morality" of the Bible and now almost all advanced societies reject the death penalty. This is just another example of how atheist morality is much better than religious morality which really is not moral at all.

Great chatting!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Hey Richard!

Thanks for your response... I understand theory v/s practice! I am suggesting that since the practice of justice cannot be separated from the theory in real life - the theory of Justice to me does not make any sense in any logical way without a point of contact for its origin as a theory. So if you say that it is MORE moral to keep someone who is in FACT innocent alive in prison JUST because they might get out some day is CRAZY! I do not think that either case (life or death in prison) is RIGHT per se - but to say life is MORE moral than death IN PRISON is what I cannot understand. My point is the DEGREE of MORALITY somehow slips me! YOU rant and rave against the murder of innocents in the Bible as not moral even if commanded by GOD but my point is I fail to see why YOU THINK locking up an innocent in prision for life v/s killing them in prison is MORE moral from your point of view....

Life and death are not moral issues to me. The source of morality is NOT the human mind. The world of nature tells us that.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
02-02-2014, 03:28 AM
Hello Mystykal,

Are you actually suggesting that it is better for an innocent person in prison to be put to death because of the bad prison environment? What about all the innocent people in prisons who have been sentenced for lesser crimes that don't involve the death penalty? Should they be killed also? Your reasoning makes NO SENSE!



If you took the time to read and understand exactly what I said you wouldn't be making such insane accusations and crazy statements! The scale of justice I was speaking of is that of EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS. What violate the integrity of my humanness also violates the integrity of your humanness, that is how I know if something is just and fair on the human scale. I was not talking about justice in terms of what type of punishment should be meted out.

I have never said the death penalty is wrong per-say. What I have said is that I don't believe in it because there is always the chance that an innocent person will be killed, and I don't think it's worth the risk of taking an innocent human life.

I think the Biblegod has caused you to lose your innate moral compass of right and wrong, because you must try and justify all the immoralities he decrees. Wrong becomes right simply because the Biblegod decreed it!

Take care,
Rose


Hi Rose:

I think you said


I think the Biblegod has caused you to lose your innate moral compass of right and wrong, because you must try and justify all the immoralities he decrees. Wrong becomes right simply because the Biblegod decreed it!

And you say that keeping a person alive in prison unjustly is BETTER than death! AHA! and THAT is Moral? that is what you said... my point is that keeping an innocent person in prison is no more MORAL that killing them! Morality is the issue here. You act like your morality which does not include the death penalty - is BETTER than the US Constitution which says capital punishment is MORAL.... I do not think that humans can determine morality based on a "golden rule" or any human system of thought. Humans by nature are not moral beings! Forget about GOD for a second... Morality is NOT based on anyones idea of justice. The simplistic notion of do unto others is not capable of addressing the bigger questions of justice in a life and death situation. If a person deserves the death penalty then that is what they should get. The imperfectness of the justice system is a problem but the theory remains the same... So that if GOD appears to be doing something "immoral" in the Bible like killing all the first born of Egypt just because they are first born - then perhaps the story is missing some piece of information which could make the whole thing make sense on a TRUE moral level. But to suggest that YOU KNOW what is moral and not moral is crazy! The idea that any one person can decide morality for the whole world is CRAZY! Humans do not agree on anything! Morality must be unified if it is to work at all. You do not accept Natural Law as the base of any of your thoughts on morality. So you are cannot possibly KNOW what is moral and what is not! The Law of the USA is the Constitution - and that is the basis of "morality" for now... Based on Natural Law! You ignore that and act like you can determine right and wrong based on your likes and dislikes of any given situation. No standard other than your own feelings is at play in your version of morality. How is that any different than the Bible's version (*aka God's feelings) you so dislike?


Namaste,

Mystykal

Richard Amiel McGough
02-02-2014, 07:34 AM
Hey Richard!

Thanks for your response... I understand theory v/s practice! I am suggesting that since the practice of justice cannot be separated from the theory in real life - the theory of Justice to me does not make any sense in any logical way without a point of contact for its origin as a theory. So if you say that it is MORE moral to keep someone who is in FACT innocent alive in prison JUST because they might get out some day is CRAZY! I do not think that either case (life or death in prison) is RIGHT per se - but to say life is MORE moral than death IN PRISON is what I cannot understand. My point is the DEGREE of MORALITY somehow slips me! YOU rant and rave against the murder of innocents in the Bible as not moral even if commanded by GOD but my point is I fail to see why YOU THINK locking up an innocent in prision for life v/s killing them in prison is MORE moral from your point of view....

Life and death are not moral issues to me. The source of morality is NOT the human mind. The world of nature tells us that.

Namaste,

Mystykal

So you think that the state should execute anyone convicted of a crime because it would be worse to put them in prison? What kind of madness has infected your brain?

Richard Amiel McGough
02-02-2014, 07:48 AM
Hey Richard!

Thanks for your response... I understand theory v/s practice! I am suggesting that since the practice of justice cannot be separated from the theory in real life - the theory of Justice to me does not make any sense in any logical way without a point of contact for its origin as a theory. So if you say that it is MORE moral to keep someone who is in FACT innocent alive in prison JUST because they might get out some day is CRAZY! I do not think that either case (life or death in prison) is RIGHT per se - but to say life is MORE moral than death IN PRISON is what I cannot understand. My point is the DEGREE of MORALITY somehow slips me! YOU rant and rave against the murder of innocents in the Bible as not moral even if commanded by GOD but my point is I fail to see why YOU THINK locking up an innocent in prision for life v/s killing them in prison is MORE moral from your point of view....


Hey there Mystykal,

Your posts are becoming crazier and crazier. You ranting and raving about things you apparently don't understand at all. You are confusing the topic by introducing crazy ideas about how we should kill people rather than put them in prison. It looks to me like you are trying to create confusion to avoid the plain logic of my argument.

So let's back it down a step. It is not difficult to have a rational conversation about morality. You say that killing people is better than imprisoning them. That is not the place to begin a discussion about morality! To make any sense about this subject we must start at the foundation. What determines if anything is right or wrong? If you can't answer that, then all your comments about what would be right or wrong in practice would be meaningless.


Life and death are not moral issues to me. The source of morality is NOT the human mind. The world of nature tells us that.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Your assertions make no sense at all. Murder is one of the primary moral issues, and life (in prison) is supposedly so immoral that you think it is worse than murder. You comments simply make no sense at all.


Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
02-02-2014, 08:34 AM
Hi Rose:

I think you said


I think the Biblegod has caused you to lose your innate moral compass of right and wrong, because you must try and justify all the immoralities he decrees. Wrong becomes right simply because the Biblegod decreed it!

And you say that keeping a person alive in prison unjustly is BETTER than death! AHA! and THAT is Moral? that is what you said... my point is that keeping an innocent person in prison is no more MORAL that killing them! Morality is the issue here. You act like your morality which does not include the death penalty - is BETTER than the US Constitution which says capital punishment is MORAL.... I do not think that humans can determine morality based on a "golden rule" or any human system of thought. Humans by nature are not moral beings! Forget about GOD for a second... Morality is NOT based on anyones idea of justice. The simplistic notion of do unto others is not capable of addressing the bigger questions of justice in a life and death situation. If a person deserves the death penalty then that is what they should get. The imperfectness of the justice system is a problem but the theory remains the same... So that if GOD appears to be doing something "immoral" in the Bible like killing all the first born of Egypt just because they are first born - then perhaps the story is missing some piece of information which could make the whole thing make sense on a TRUE moral level. But to suggest that YOU KNOW what is moral and not moral is crazy! The idea that any one person can decide morality for the whole world is CRAZY! Humans do not agree on anything! Morality must be unified if it is to work at all. You do not accept Natural Law as the base of any of your thoughts on morality. So you are cannot possibly KNOW what is moral and what is not! The Law of the USA is the Constitution - and that is the basis of "morality" for now... Based on Natural Law! You ignore that and act like you can determine right and wrong based on your likes and dislikes of any given situation. No standard other than your own feelings is at play in your version of morality. How is that any different than the Bible's version (*aka God's feelings) you so dislike?


Namaste,

Mystykal
Hey there Mystykal,

You are really on a rant! Unfortunately, the problem with rants is they are often irrational. Case in point: You have not defined what you mean by morality, yet you make many dogmatic assertions about it. And then you dogmatically assert that no one can dogmatically assert anything about morality. Obviously, your are going off the rails here. You are not even trying to be rational.

So let's try to ground your comments in reality.

Confusion #1: You are confusing the question of morality, which concerns how a person should treat others, with the question of criminal justice, that is, how a society should keep social order.

Confusion #2: You assert that humans are "not moral beings" even as you adamantly assert your opinions about what is or is not moral.

Confusion #3: You reject the idea that "humans can determine morality based on a "golden rule" or any human system of thought." There are two confusions here: first, the phrase "human system of thought" is entirely redundant since there is no other "system of thought" known to humans. Second, you are rejecting the teaching of Christ who teaches that the Golden Rule sums up the entire moral law of the Bible:
Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Confusion #4: Your assertion that "Morality is NOT based on anyones idea of justice" is simply ludicrous. The idea of justice is central to morality. Any deliberate act of injustice is immoral.

Confusion #5: Your rejection of Christ's moral teaching as a "simplistic notion" that is "not capable of addressing the bigger questions of justice in a life and death situation" is truly fascinating. You appear to be dismissing the teaching of Christ in your effort to defend the genocide attributed to his father! That's just CRAZY. And of course you are contradicting your previous assertion that morality has nothing to do with life and death. Really, your comments are completely confused.

Confusion #6: You said "If a person deserves the death penalty then that is what they should get." Oh really? What about your assertion that it is CRAZY for "any one person" (such as yourself) to "decide morality for the whole world"? You are the one declaring and deciding what others can say about morality, even as you say that no one can say anything about it. Talk about CRAZY!

Confusion #7: You say that "Humans do not agree on anything!" That is not true. We have broad agreement on things that are based on reality. The confusions come in when people start making up things like religions and claiming they are "true" when in fact they are not even coherent, let alone based on any facts.

Confusion #8: You wrote: "You do not accept Natural Law as the base of any of your thoughts on morality. So you are cannot possibly KNOW what is moral and what is not!" There are two fundamental confusions here. First, I have no idea what you think you mean by "natural law" in relation to morality because you have not bothered to define it. Second, you are now claiming knowledge of morality and so totally contradicting your assertion that no one can know anything about it. Make up you mind!

Confusion #9: You say "Morality must be unified if it is to work at all." That's exactly correct, and that's exactly what i have done with my moral theory. I have explained the ontological foundation of morality as INTEGRITY which means UNITY. Yet you reject my theory without understanding the first thing about it. That's just CRAZY.

Confusion #10: You say "The idea that any one person can decide morality for the whole world is CRAZY!" No one "decides" morality any more than one person "decides" what is true about math or physics. Truth is truth. It does not depend on one person's decision. And let's not forget that you are directly contradicting yourself since you are saying that it would be more moral to kill innocent people than to put them in prison, and a number of other moral proclamations. Your comments are entirely inconsistent and incoherent.

Confusion #11: You wrote: "The Law of the USA is the Constitution - and that is the basis of "morality" for now." This is perhaps your greatest confusion. The constitution does not define morality. Your assertion that it does contradicts your assertion that human thought cannot define morality. Morality is defined by reality, not some imperfect social constitution.

Confusion #12: Your assertion that "No standard other than your own feelings is at play in your version of morality" is utterly absurd. It is ludicrous. It is insane. My theory explicitly takes into account the feelings of the other person. No wonder you are so confused. You have chosen to make utterly absurd assertions that directly contradict what I have explicitly stated.

Confusion #13: "How is that any different than the Bible's version (*aka God's feelings) you so dislike?" What is the difference? Oh ... I don't know. Let me think about that for a minute. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that God obviously doesn't give a shit about the people he despises, and he uses his superpowers to torment and murder them all except for 32,000 sexy virgins that he gives as sex toys to his "holy people" even as they were still dripping with the blood of the babies they just slaughtered. I guess you are right, there is no difference between my moral theory and the teachings of the Bible. Thanks for pointing that out.

Richard

Rose
02-02-2014, 08:36 AM
Hi Rose:

And you say that keeping a person alive in prison unjustly is BETTER than death! AHA! and THAT is Moral? that is what you said... my point is that keeping an innocent person in prison is no more MORAL that killing them! Morality is the issue here. You act like your morality which does not include the death penalty - is BETTER than the US Constitution which says capital punishment is MORAL.... I do not think that humans can determine morality based on a "golden rule" or any human system of thought. Humans by nature are not moral beings! Forget about GOD for a second... Morality is NOT based on anyones idea of justice. The simplistic notion of do unto others is not capable of addressing the bigger questions of justice in a life and death situation. If a person deserves the death penalty then that is what they should get. The imperfectness of the justice system is a problem but the theory remains the same... So that if GOD appears to be doing something "immoral" in the Bible like killing all the first born of Egypt just because they are first born - then perhaps the story is missing some piece of information which could make the whole thing make sense on a TRUE moral level.

Hello Mystykal

IF you think it is so much better to kill a person instead of keeping them in prison, why don't you just give the person in question a choice of whether or not they would like to remain in prison, or be put to death? You seem to have already made the decision that a person deserves death over life in prison.

Justice and fairness are not based on an individuals ideas. If something is fair and equal, it is just and balanced. If two coins are of equal value, I can pay for a product with either coin and it would be just and fair, which has nothing to do with my ideas as an individual.

The missing piece of information in your theory of god doing no wrong, is the fact that you assume the Bible is true based on bad evidence. In reality the Bible is based on the thinking of primitive men, who had the warped idea of humans needing a god to tell them what is right and wrong. A moral theory cannot be built on a foundation of falsehoods, which is what the Bible is.


But to suggest that YOU KNOW what is moral and not moral is crazy! The idea that any one person can decide morality for the whole world is CRAZY! Humans do not agree on anything! Morality must be unified if it is to work at all.

It is obvious that you have not understood a word of what I have said. Me, nor anyone else decides morality! Morality is based on the unified fact that we all share humanness. What violates my integrity as a human, also violates your integrity as a human and is therefore immoral. It doesn't get any simpler than that.


You do not accept Natural Law as the base of any of your thoughts on morality. So you are cannot possibly KNOW what is moral and what is not! The Law of the USA is the Constitution - and that is the basis of "morality" for now... Based on Natural Law! You ignore that and act like you can determine right and wrong based on your likes and dislikes of any given situation. No standard other than your own feelings is at play in your version of morality. How is that any different than the Bible's version (*aka God's feelings) you so dislike?


Namaste,

Mystykal

Any rational person can know what is moral, from the simple principle of understanding what it means when your integrity as a human is violated. I don't understand how you cannot get something so basic? You go on and on about people basing morality on likes and dislikes, which has nothing to do with the fact that morality is based on our shared humanity. The fact that I am human and you are human has nothing to do with how I feel, or what I like or dislike ... IT IS AN OBJECTIVE FACT!

Take care,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
02-02-2014, 08:55 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2B6SjMh_w

Mystykal
02-02-2014, 11:56 PM
Hello Mystykal

IF you think it is so much better to kill a person instead of keeping them in prison, why don't you just give the person in question a choice of whether or not they would like to remain in prison, or be put to death? You seem to have already made the decision that a person deserves death over life in prison.

Justice and fairness are not based on an individuals ideas. If something is fair and equal, it is just and balanced. If two coins are of equal value, I can pay for a product with either coin and it would be just and fair, which has nothing to do with my ideas as an individual.

The missing piece of information in your theory of god doing no wrong, is the fact that you assume the Bible is true based on bad evidence. In reality the Bible is based on the thinking of primitive men, who had the warped idea of humans needing a god to tell them what is right and wrong. A moral theory cannot be built on a foundation of falsehoods, which is what the Bible is.



It is obvious that you have not understood a word of what I have said. Me, nor anyone else decides morality! Morality is based on the unified fact that we all share humanness. What violates my integrity as a human, also violates your integrity as a human and is therefore immoral. It doesn't get any simpler than that.



Any rational person can know what is moral, from the simple principle of understanding what it means when your integrity as a human is violated. I don't understand how you cannot get something so basic? You go on and on about people basing morality on likes and dislikes, which has nothing to do with the fact that morality is based on our shared humanity. The fact that I am human and you are human has nothing to do with how I feel, or what I like or dislike ... IT IS AN OBJECTIVE FACT!

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

I am not trying to be difficult! I really do not understand your leap from humanness to morality. Humanity has NOTHING to do with MORALITY! Let me put it to you this way... It is considered a criminal act, hence immoral, to kill a pet dog and eat it in the USA. But in China it is considered a normal special dish to bring a live dog to be served as the main course at your meal...

The immoral/illegal act is against a dog/pet not a human. In China pets are not held in the same regards as in the USA. The morality issue changes from country to country....

So I do not understand why you insist that morality is based on humanness/humanity as if it is "self-evident."

Are you a vegan? Some people believe if you eat meat you are being immoral... Do you think that? I have been a vegetarian all my life! But I do not believe that eating meat is "immoral" per se. Do you? And if you don't why not? And if you feel it is immoral why do others not think so? And who is right? You?...


What violates my integrity as a human, also violates your integrity as a human and is therefore immoral. How is your integrity violated when I eat my pet dog?

My point is that your simplistic model of how we KNOW morals and morality because of shared humanness - makes no sense at all to me. People do not agree on anything! So to say that somehow we all internally agree on what is moral based on shared humanity is well, insane!...no god needed!


Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
02-03-2014, 01:46 AM
Musical Interlude...YES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgRLrOyxUBo

Rose
02-03-2014, 06:07 PM
Hi Rose:

I am not trying to be difficult! I really do not understand your leap from humanness to morality. Humanity has NOTHING to do with MORALITY! Let me put it to you this way... It is considered a criminal act, hence immoral, to kill a pet dog and eat it in the USA. But in China it is considered a normal special dish to bring a live dog to be served as the main course at your meal...

The immoral/illegal act is against a dog/pet not a human. In China pets are not held in the same regards as in the USA. The morality issue changes from country to country....

So I do not understand why you insist that morality is based on humanness/humanity as if it is "self-evident."

Are you a vegan? Some people believe if you eat meat you are being immoral... Do you think that? I have been a vegetarian all my life! But I do not believe that eating meat is "immoral" per se. Do you? And if you don't why not? And if you feel it is immoral why do others not think so? And who is right? You?...



What violates my integrity as a human, also violates your integrity as a human and is therefore immoral.


How is your integrity violated when I eat my pet dog?

My point is that your simplistic model of how we KNOW morals and morality because of shared humanness - makes no sense at all to me. People do not agree on anything! So to say that somehow we all internally agree on what is moral based on shared humanity is well, insane!...no god needed!


Namaste,

Mystykal

First off you need to back up. You are jumping from the immoral act of violating the integrity of a human (which is what I am talking about), to the unethical and illegal act of eating someones pet dog! Morality applies to humans, when someone violates my integrity as a human that is an immoral act. The reason we know it is a immoral act is because it applies equally to all humans, because we all share humanness.

If you want to talk about eating someones pet dog, or your own dog that is a whole different issue. Just because an act is criminal or illegal does not necessarily make it immoral. Also eating meat, or not eating meat has nothing to do with morality.

I am specifically speaking of violations against the integrity of humans being a universal standard of morality. I am not talking about ethical standards that vary from culture to culture. In our society it is unethical to eat dogs, whereas in China it is not. These are not moral issues, they are ethical issues, which is where your confusion lies. I hope this clears things up. :D

Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
02-04-2014, 01:27 AM
First off you need to back up. You are jumping from the immoral act of violating the integrity of a human (which is what I am talking about), to the unethical and illegal act of eating someones pet dog! Morality applies to humans, when someone violates my integrity as a human that is an immoral act. The reason we know it is a immoral act is because it applies equally to all humans, because we all share humanness.

If you want to talk about eating someones pet dog, or your own dog that is a whole different issue. Just because an act is criminal or illegal does not necessarily make it immoral. Also eating meat, or not eating meat has nothing to do with morality.

I am specifically speaking of violations against the integrity of humans being a universal standard of morality. I am not talking about ethical standards that vary from culture to culture. In our society it is unethical to eat dogs, whereas in China it is not. These are not moral issues, they are ethical issues, which is where your confusion lies. I hope this clears things up. :D

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:



In our society it is unethical to eat dogs, whereas in China it is not. These are not moral issues, they are ethical issues,

I found this definition for moral v/s ethical...


http://topics.wisegeek.org/topics.htm?difference-between-ethical-and-moral

The difference between ethics and morals can seem somewhat arbitrary to many, but there is a basic, albeit subtle, difference. Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a person’s moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.

When considering the difference between ethics and morals, it may be helpful to consider a criminal defense lawyer. Though the lawyer’s personal moral code likely finds murder immoral and reprehensible, ethics demand the accused client be defended as vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty and that a freed defendant would potentially lead to more crime. Legal ethics must override personal morals for the greater good of upholding a justice system in which the accused are given a fair trial and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


•While some moral theories set out a specific code of ethics, other moral theorists choose to develop a framework with which a person can answer the moral and ethical questions posed by any given situation. For instance, the moral philosophy of consequentialism asserts that the morality of an action is determined by its outcome, regardless of the action itself.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#ConWhoLimDemMor

1. Classic Utilitarianism
The paradigm case of consequentialism is utilitarianism, whose classic proponents were Jeremy Bentham (1789), John Stuart Mill (1861), and Henry Sidgwick (1907). (For predecessors, see Schneewind 1990.) Classic utilitarians held hedonistic act consequentialism. Act consequentialism is the claim that an act is morally right if and only if that act maximizes the good, that is, if and only if the total amount of good for all minus the total amount of bad for all is greater than this net amount for any incompatible act available to the agent on that occasion. (Cf. Moore 1912, chs. 1–2.) Hedonism then claims that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that pain is the only intrinsic bad. Together these claims imply that an act is morally right if and only if that act causes “the greatest happiness for the greatest number,” as the common slogan says.

Classic utilitarianism is consequentialist as opposed to deontological because of what it denies. It denies that moral rightness depends directly on anything other than consequences, such as whether the agent promised in the past to do the act now. Of course, the fact that the agent promised to do the act might indirectly affect the act's consequences if breaking the promise will make other people unhappy. Nonetheless, according to classic utilitarianism, what makes it morally wrong to break the promise is its future effects on those other people rather than the fact that the agent promised in the past.

Since classic utilitarianism reduces all morally relevant factors (Kagan 1998, 17–22) to consequences, it might appear simple. However, classic utilitarianism is actually a complex combination of many distinct claims, including the following claims about the moral rightness of acts:

Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act).

Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the actual consequences (as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences).

Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act itself (as opposed to the consequences of the agent's motive, of a rule or practice that covers other acts of the same kind, and so on).

Evaluative Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the value of the consequences (as opposed to non-evaluative features of the consequences).

Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on the pleasures and pains in the consequences (as opposed to other goods, such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on).

Maximizing Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on which consequences are best (as opposed to merely satisfactory or an improvement over the status quo).

Aggregative Consequentialism = which consequences are best is some function of the values of parts of those consequences (as opposed to rankings of whole worlds or sets of consequences).

Total Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the total net good in the consequences (as opposed to the average net good per person).

Universal Consequentialism = moral rightness depends on the consequences for all people or sentient beings (as opposed to only the individual agent, members of the individual's society, present people, or any other limited group).

Equal Consideration = in determining moral rightness, benefits to one person matter just as much as similar benefits to any other person (= all who count count equally).

Agent-neutrality = whether some consequences are better than others does not depend on whether the consequences are evaluated from the perspective of the agent (as opposed to an observer).

These claims could be clarified, supplemented, and subdivided further. What matters here is just that most pairs of these claims are logically independent, so a moral theorist could consistently accept some of them without accepting others. Yet classic utilitarians accepted them all. That fact makes classic utilitarianism a more complex theory than it might appear at first sight.

It also makes classic utilitarianism subject to attack from many angles. Persistent opponents posed plenty of problems for classic utilitarianism. Each objection led some utilitarians to give up some of the original claims of classic utilitarianism. By dropping one or more of those claims, descendants of utilitarianism can construct a wide variety of moral theories. Advocates of these theories often call them consequentialism rather than utilitarianism so that their theories will not be subject to refutation by association with the classic utilitarian theory.


So is it possible that you have confused ehtics and morality? You are applying a different understanding to each term whereas some combine the two word meanings into one? It that possible?

Namaste,


Mystykal

David M
02-04-2014, 06:21 AM
Hello Mystykal

At the heart of this thread is whether the Bible is the word of God. The Bible tells us that God is righteous, God is just, and God is able know the heart of a person.
Only God is in the position to know everything. In the case of man's legal system, God knows what is in the mind of the judge, the prosecutor, the defendant's lawyer, the juror, and he knows what is in the heart (mind) of the criminal. Under the legal system, the criminal can be hoping to escape prosecution due to a sloppy prosecutor, or the cunning work of a slick criminal defence lawyer. A remorseful and repentant criminal would openly confess and does not expect to escape some form of punishment.

The legal system does not get it right all of the time. That is the problem involving the death penalty. In cases of genuine doubt, it is better for a person to be held in prison with the potential to be proved innocent eventually. That means the prison system has to protect those people from the abuse you say goes on in prison.

The problem we have in our western legal systems is where there is no doubt whatsoever and murderers are locked up, only to serve a half-life sentence and so be released after 17 years and let loose to commit murder again.

Our faith ultimately rests in the ability of God to raise the dead, and to preserve our unique identity (spirit).

The moral superiority of God is that he knows who is worthy of death and who is worth to be saved. Rose will use the death of "innocent" children (for one example) as an excuse ( invalid in my opinion) for claiming God is immoral. Those children, who were killed, would not have grown up to be remain "innocent" and would have followed in the steps of their parents (which were to blame). For those children to be saved, they would have to first gain knowledge of God and his instruction. Without that knowledge, the children are as good as dead already. That might sound like a harsh statement, but it is a fact. We have to take on board that which God tells us and it is; my people are destroyed through lack of knowledge. That lack of knowledge of God and his requirements results in man's destruction, which God has the right to exercise and is in accordance with keeping his word.

If knowledge is the key, then children of a very young age, do not have knowledge; they only have conciousness. It is the duty of parents' to give their children the knowledge as soon as the children of an age to understand.

Once the knowledge has been acquired, the onus passes from parent to child/adult. That child/adult has the knowledge it then needs to apply and so follow the instruction of God. Anyone who does not, is subject to the consequences and the consequences result in eternal death.

God has given man knowledge of God; the Creator. God has given his instructions (the law). That knowledge has been added to and handed down throughout the generations to our present time.

By not having the required knowledge, a person is exposed to being destroyed.

The knowledge gained has to be applied, otherwise the person still leaves themselves exposed for destruction.
.
As a basis for all the moral issues in the Bible, answering the following questions would determine whether the judgement of God is just.

Does the person have the required knowledge of God? If they do, are they complying with God's instruction?

The answer will either be "yes", or "no", or "they are attempting to.." and on these answers rests the judgement of God.

Can you think of a better set of questions to form the criteria on which God's judgement is based? I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.



David

Rose
02-04-2014, 09:08 AM
Hi Rose:


So is it possible that you have confused ehtics and morality? You are applying a different understanding to each term whereas some combine the two word meanings into one? It that possible?

Namaste,


Mystykal

Hello Mystykal

Yes, the understanding and application of morality and ethics is confused, conflated and misunderstood by many people. There is also objective and subjective; normative and descriptive morality, but this has not been what my what my argument is about. You are the one who introduced the confusion and diverted the focus away from my core idea of immorality in the Bible.

From the get-go I have stated clearly that the point of my argument is to understand the principle of the Golden Rule, and how it objectively applies to all people. I have stated that because we are all human, and what violates my human rights also violates yours. Every rational person knows when they are violating another persons human rights by applying the standard to themselves. My argument strictly pertains to subject of how we know what is the fair and just treatment of all humans, and how I know that the Bible is gender biased, unjust and unfair in its treatment of women.

The Golden Rule that Jesus promoted directly contradicts the decrees of the Old Testament given by the god he called father. Neither Jesus, nor any of the other teachers in the New Testament make any attempt to rectify the egregious human rights violations scattered throughout the Bible. No god that decrees laws that violate peoples human rights based on gender, can be called just or moral!

Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
02-07-2014, 11:45 PM
Hello Mystykal

Yes, the understanding and application of morality and ethics is confused, conflated and misunderstood by many people. There is also objective and subjective; normative and descriptive morality, but this has not been what my what my argument is about. You are the one who introduced the confusion and diverted the focus away from my core idea of immorality in the Bible.

From the get-go I have stated clearly that the point of my argument is to understand the principle of the Golden Rule, and how it objectively applies to all people. I have stated that because we are all human, and what violates my human rights also violates yours. Every rational person knows when they are violating another persons human rights by applying the standard to themselves. My argument strictly pertains to subject of how we know what is the fair and just treatment of all humans, and how I know that the Bible is gender biased, unjust and unfair in its treatment of women.

The Golden Rule that Jesus promoted directly contradicts the decrees of the Old Testament given by the god he called father. Neither Jesus, nor any of the other teachers in the New Testament make any attempt to rectify the egregious human rights violations scattered throughout the Bible. No god that decrees laws that violate peoples human rights based on gender, can be called just or moral!

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

You Said:

First off you need to back up. You are jumping from the immoral act of violating the integrity of a human (which is what I am talking about), to the unethical and illegal act of eating someones pet dog!... From the get-go I have stated clearly that the point of my argument is to understand the principle of the Golden Rule, and how it objectively applies to all people.


I guess I do not understand what you are calling the Golden Rule. It appears to be some vague idea which you bend into a belief which you claim all people know by simply applying it to some personal question which then gets an answer which is universally applicable.

That is so difficult to really understand in the sense that you are acting like morallity and ethics are two different things which do not have any correlation. So when you say that people KNOW that this or that is WRONG they know because it is innate in them to know. The idea that somehow all people share anything in common on an intellectual level is really laughable. There is a tribe in New Guinea that only eats human flesh with a fork as it is against their "religion" (ethics) to eat human flesh with their fingers...

Are you suggesting that they KNOW that eating other humans is MORALLY wrong? Do you think they know that they are violating some INNATE rule of the cosmos?

Namaste,


Mystykal

Rose
02-08-2014, 04:52 PM
Hi Rose:


I guess I do not understand what you are calling the Golden Rule. It appears to be some vague idea which you bend into a belief which you claim all people know by simply applying it to some personal question which then gets an answer which is universally applicable.

Hello Mystykal,

The Golden Rule is the principle of knowing how to treat people and what violates their human rights. What is universally applicable about the Golden Rule is that all people know what violates their own human rights, so they can apply the same standard to every other human on the planet. What I am specifically speaking of is how humans are treated by others and how we know when that treatment is immoral.


That is so difficult to really understand in the sense that you are acting like morallity and ethics are two different things which do not have any correlation. So when you say that people KNOW that this or that is WRONG they know because it is innate in them to know. The idea that somehow all people share anything in common on an intellectual level is really laughable.


The one thing that all people share is their HUMANNESS. That is what the Golden Rule is all about, treating others as you wish to be treated and not violating their human rights. My focus is totally on equal human rights and how we know if we are violating another persons human rights.




There is a tribe in New Guinea that only eats human flesh with a fork as it is against their "religion" (ethics) to eat human flesh with their fingers... Are you suggesting that they KNOW that eating other humans is MORALLY wrong? Do you think they know that they are violating some INNATE rule of the cosmos?

Namaste,


Mystykal

If the people of the tribe in New Guinea were presented with the principle of the Golden Rule, of course they would know that it is wrong to kill other humans to eat their flesh. Would any one of those New Guinea tribal members want another tribe to come and kill them or their family members and eat them? Of course NOT! Like I have said over and over again ... what violates one persons humans rights, equally violates another persons human rights and is immoral. WE ARE ALL HUMAN.

Take care,
Rose

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
02-09-2014, 02:11 AM
HI Y'all! Newbie here. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Western Union Telegram

To: Jehovah-Yahweh
Care: Celestial Hotel (Suite #666)
Presidential Tier, Paradise

Dear God;
This is to inform you that your current position as diety is herewith
TERNMINATED due to GROSS INCOMPETENCE incompetence STOP Your check will be mailed STOP
Please do not use me for a reference :pray:

Respectfully,

Your Most Excellent GODDESS SATURATED SAINT! :winking0071:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Religion to some degree I think is an expression and projection of mankind's abhorrence of the "dog-eat-dog" world he lives in and witnesses daily.

Thomas Paine said "if you want to know God don't waste your time studying the Bible which is a spurious book, study Nature and you will know God." (And how right he was right.)

Darwin "correctly observed" life is about the struggle of the species. There is no right, no wrong, in the animal and plant kingdoms as each organism contends with others to survive and reproduce itself. Millions of life forms are born each day, plant and animal, human, and millions are killed and devoured by other life forms. The living can live only by consuming another living organism. Nature reveals a brutal world without any concept of right or wrong.

Down through the ages caring, reflective men and women have been appalled by this and have sought an escape from this reality by creating a "Fantasy-World" that never existed, a world where man "LIVES IN UTOPIAN PEACE" without fear of his fellow man or wild animals killing and devouring him.

Fundamentalist Christian Intolerance is alive and well in America.

Now you know why for over the past 100 years millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims have no knowledge that Adam and Eve are "fictional characters and recasts of still earlier fictional characters[!!!], Enkidu and Shamhat of "The Epic of Gilgamesh" believed to have been composed circa 2000 B.C., a later copy being found by archaeologists at Ur of the Chaldees in ancient Sumer where Abraham once lived according to the Bible; Shamhat's urging Enkidu to eat the food he initially balked at in the edin being recast as Eve urging Adam to eat forbidden food in Eden.

Genesis' motifs are simply recasts of Mesopotamian beliefs and notions.

That is to say that today Jews, Christians and Moslems are slaughtering and killing each other in the Middle East and elsewhere (Europe, Asia and Africa) over "a recast Sumerian myth about man's creation" by Sumerian gods to work in thier city-gardens located in the midst of the edin. I have often wondered why it is that the world is ignorant of this research published well over 100 years ago.

What a shame that the much of world does not know the truth, that the Genesis story about the Garden of Eden is a myth and a later recast of motifs appearing in a much earlier composition, the Epic of Gilgamesh.

WHAT AN UNJUST BURDEN OF GUILT HAS AFFLICTED MAN, "BUT ESPECIALLY WOMAN[!]", over the past 4000 years for the believers in the myth of the Garden of Eden: Jew, Christian, and Muslim. What a shame that today Jews, Christians and Moslems are killing each other because of these myths and "WHAT A SHAME THAT WOMANKIND HAS BEEN MARGINALIZED AND TYRANNIZED" by this Adam and Eve NONSENSE not only in the past but the present as well.

It's "DEPRECATION OF WOMEN'S SPIRITUALITY AND EXCLUSION" of women from positions of religious authority.

Just think, had the Epic of Gilgamesh never been composed, perhaps the story of Adam and Eve as recasts of Enkidu and Shamhat would never have been composed too. And What a difference this would might have made for the world over the past 4000 years, to be "free" of this NONSENSE.

Man still "loves, cares, displays tenderness, seeks the welfare of others": wife, hearth, home, children, parents, community. Can man survive without "imaginary gods" who supposedly are the source of absolute "knowledge of good and evil" (right and wrong) via divine revelations to pious men and women?

Pehaps only time will tell...

To me personally, Christian Fundamantalism is basically paganism badly reworked over with some VERY NASTY "FLESH-HATING" Manichaeism mixed and thrown in for good measure. Both of them (Luther and Calvin) placed too much emphasis and pathological-obession on perceptions of dualism, and the body-desires of the flesh and matter-hatred. Absolutely and patholgically-obsessed with the flesh-body, all sexual matters and on specific parts of the body, which is pathological and mentally-ill in my humble opinion.


I do venerate the Goddess. There is no Goddess but Goddess and She is Your GODDESS! :thumb:

Mystykal
02-09-2014, 05:04 PM
Hello Mystykal,

The Golden Rule is the principle of knowing how to treat people and what violates their human rights. What is universally applicable about the Golden Rule is that all people know what violates their own human rights, so they can apply the same standard to every other human on the planet. What I am specifically speaking of is how humans are treated by others and how we know when that treatment is immoral.




The one thing that all people share is their HUMANNESS. That is what the Golden Rule is all about, treating others as you wish to be treated and not violating their human rights. My focus is totally on equal human rights and how we know if we are violating another persons human rights.





If the people of the tribe in New Guinea were presented with the principle of the Golden Rule, of course they would know that it is wrong to kill other humans to eat their flesh. Would any one of those New Guinea tribal members want another tribe to come and kill them or their family members and eat them? Of course NOT! Like I have said over and over again ... what violates one persons humans rights, equally violates another persons human rights and is immoral. WE ARE ALL HUMAN.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:


If the people of the tribe in New Guinea were presented with the principle of the Golden Rule, of course they would know that it is wrong to kill other humans to eat their flesh. Would any one of those New Guinea tribal members want another tribe to come and kill them or their family members and eat them? Of course NOT! Like I have said over and over again ... what violates one persons humans rights, equally violates another persons human rights and is immoral. WE ARE ALL HUMAN.
I don't think that your conclusion is correct... You say that the cannibals would not want their families eaten but I do not think that is always so...:eek:

How about gay marriage? See this idea that you say that all people know these things is the point which I disagree with. Do you think that all gay people should have marriage rites like heterosexuals - as if they heterosexuals would not be happy if their right to marry is nullified as well.? I really do not think that you can get a consensus on these topics as easily as you pretend to make it.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Richard Amiel McGough
02-09-2014, 07:43 PM
HI Y'all! Newbie here. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Western Union Telegram

To: Jehovah-Yahweh
Care: Celestial Hotel (Suite #666)
Presidential Tier, Paradise

Dear God;
This is to inform you that your current position as diety is herewith
TERNMINATED due to GROSS INCOMPETENCE incompetence STOP Your check will be mailed STOP
Please do not use me for a reference :pray:

Respectfully,

Your Most Excellent GODDESS SATURATED SAINT! :winking0071:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey there SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Your name makes me think that you have an interest in Thelemic Magick, of the kind put forth by Aleister Crowley. Is that correct?

Your introductory epistle to Yahweh is pretty "spicy." You sound like someone with an opinion. That bodes well for some interesting conversation.



Religion to some degree I think is an expression and projection of mankind's abhorrence of the "dog-eat-dog" world he lives in and witnesses daily.

I don't see the connection. Religion began as a response by ignorant primitive humans to the mysteries of existence. Like children who think their parents are all powerful and all knowing, so ignorant humans projected their sense of agency onto a "super person" who made everything. They had no other explanation.



Thomas Paine said "if you want to know God don't waste your time studying the Bible which is a spurious book, study Nature and you will know God." (And how right he was right.)

Darwin "correctly observed" life is about the struggle of the species. There is no right, no wrong, in the animal and plant kingdoms as each organism contends with others to survive and reproduce itself. Millions of life forms are born each day, plant and animal, human, and millions are killed and devoured by other life forms. The living can live only by consuming another living organism. Nature reveals a brutal world without any concept of right or wrong.

I agree with Thomas Paine, but your reference to Darwin makes no sense to me. Non-human animals have no "morality" because they don't have the faculties required for moral agency. A moral agent is defined as any being able to make moral judgments and be subject to them. Moral agents must possess two faculties. They must be self-aware else they could not make judgments with respect to their own actions and so could not be held responsible. And in as much as moral judgments are stated as propositions, they must have a faculty of language. which is required if we are to develop a moral philosophy. I discuss this at length in my article Why Most Animals are Not Philosophers: Fatal Flaws in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for God (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/01/18/why-animals-are-not-moral-agents-fatal-flaws-in-dr-craigs-moral-argument-for-god/).



Down through the ages caring, reflective men and women have been appalled by this and have sought an escape from this reality by creating a "Fantasy-World" that never existed, a world where man "LIVES IN UTOPIAN PEACE" without fear of his fellow man or wild animals killing and devouring him.

The fact that those "caring, reflective" human animals evolved contradicts the idea that nature could not account for morality. From my perspective, morality is a natural aspect of what it means to be a rational being. I explain this in two articles. The main argument is presented in an article called The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/25/the-logic-of-love-a-natural-theory-of-morality/) and the second article is called Morality is Objective, Like a Pair of Scales: Another Fatal Flaw in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for God (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/12/22/morality-is-objective-like-a-pair-of-scales-another-fatal-flaw-in-dr-craigs-moral-argument-for-god/).



Fundamentalist Christian Intolerance is alive and well in America.

Well ain't that a fact!



That is to say that today Jews, Christians and Moslems are slaughtering and killing each other in the Middle East and elsewhere (Europe, Asia and Africa) over "a recast Sumerian myth about man's creation" by Sumerian gods to work in thier city-gardens located in the midst of the edin. I have often wondered why it is that the world is ignorant of this research published well over 100 years ago.

Too true.



WHAT AN UNJUST BURDEN OF GUILT HAS AFFLICTED MAN, "BUT ESPECIALLY WOMAN[!]", over the past 4000 years for the believers in the myth of the Garden of Eden: Jew, Christian, and Muslim. What a shame that today Jews, Christians and Moslems are killing each other because of these myths and "WHAT A SHAME THAT WOMANKIND HAS BEEN MARGINALIZED AND TYRANNIZED" by this Adam and Eve NONSENSE not only in the past but the present as well.

It's "DEPRECATION OF WOMEN'S SPIRITUALITY AND EXCLUSION" of women from positions of religious authority.

I couldn't agree more. I explain my point of view in an article called The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/18/the-inextricable-sexism-of-the-bible/).



Just think, had the Epic of Gilgamesh never been composed, perhaps the story of Adam and Eve as recasts of Enkidu and Shamhat would never have been composed too. And What a difference this would might have made for the world over the past 4000 years, to be "free" of this NONSENSE.

Well, if it weren't one thing it probably would have been another. I'm just glad we made it far enough to being to think for ourselves and to realize that the old religious superstitions were just that - superstitions.



Man still "loves, cares, displays tenderness, seeks the welfare of others": wife, hearth, home, children, parents, community. Can man survive without "imaginary gods" who supposedly are the source of absolute "knowledge of good and evil" (right and wrong) via divine revelations to pious men and women?

Pehaps only time will tell...

You bet they can! Morality is completely natural. It is based on what it means to be a rational being. It has nothing to do with any god or gods.



To me personally, Christian Fundamantalism is basically paganism badly reworked over with some VERY NASTY "FLESH-HATING" Manichaeism mixed and thrown in for good measure. Both of them (Luther and Calvin) placed too much emphasis and pathological-obession on perceptions of dualism, and the body-desires of the flesh and matter-hatred. Absolutely and patholgically-obsessed with the flesh-body, all sexual matters and on specific parts of the body, which is pathological and mentally-ill in my humble opinion.

I agree very much, but I wouldn't blame Luther and Calvin. There were fairly true to the traditions they received. The "blame" lies with the ignorant primitive traditions that were accepted as the "inerrant and infallible Word of God."



I do venerate the Goddess. There is no Goddess but Goddess and She is Your GODDESS! :thumb:
Well, the Goddess seems every bit as "superstitious" as any other god. Are you using it as a metaphor?

Again, it's great to have you present your points of view. I look forward to discussing them with you.

Richard

Rose
02-09-2014, 08:07 PM
Hi Rose:


I don't think that your conclusion is correct... You say that the cannibals would not want their families eaten but I do not think that is always so...:eek:

Hello Mystykal,

Now you are just being silly. :lol: No rational human would want their family members, or themselves killed and eaten!


How about gay marriage? See this idea that you say that all people know these things is the point which I disagree with. Do you think that all gay people should have marriage rites like heterosexuals - as if they heterosexuals would not be happy if their right to marry is nullified as well.? I really do not think that you can get a consensus on these topics as easily as you pretend to make it.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Most of the people who oppose gay marriage do so for religious reasons, because they think their god has decreed that homosexuality is sinful. It is a basic human right to choose the partner with which you want to live in a marriage relationship with.

I am not saying that it is easy to get people to agree on what is or is not moral, but if the question is posed as an issue of shared humanness then all rational people must agree that whatever violates their own humanness, also violates all other persons humanness as well.

Take care,
Rose

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
02-10-2014, 06:24 AM
Hey there SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Your name makes me think that you have an interest in Thelemic Magick, of the kind put forth by Aleister Crowley. Is that correct?

Your introductory epistle to Yahweh is pretty "spicy." You sound like someone with an opinion. That bodes well for some interesting conversation.


I don't see the connection. Religion began as a response by ignorant primitive humans to the mysteries of existence. Like children who think their parents are all powerful and all knowing, so ignorant humans projected their sense of agency onto a "super person" who made everything. They had no other explanation.


I agree with Thomas Paine, but your reference to Darwin makes no sense to me. Non-human animals have no "morality" because they don't have the faculties required for moral agency. A moral agent is defined as any being able to make moral judgments and be subject to them. Moral agents must possess two faculties. They must be self-aware else they could not make judgments with respect to their own actions and so could not be held responsible. And in as much as moral judgments are stated as propositions, they must have a faculty of language. which is required if we are to develop a moral philosophy. I discuss this at length in my article Why Most Animals are Not Philosophers: Fatal Flaws in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for God (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/01/18/why-animals-are-not-moral-agents-fatal-flaws-in-dr-craigs-moral-argument-for-god/).


The fact that those "caring, reflective" human animals evolved contradicts the idea that nature could not account for morality. From my perspective, morality is a natural aspect of what it means to be a rational being. I explain this in two articles. The main argument is presented in an article called The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/25/the-logic-of-love-a-natural-theory-of-morality/) and the second article is called Morality is Objective, Like a Pair of Scales: Another Fatal Flaw in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for God (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/12/22/morality-is-objective-like-a-pair-of-scales-another-fatal-flaw-in-dr-craigs-moral-argument-for-god/).


Well ain't that a fact!


Too true.


I couldn't agree more. I explain my point of view in an article called The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/18/the-inextricable-sexism-of-the-bible/).


Well, if it weren't one thing it probably would have been another. I'm just glad we made it far enough to being to think for ourselves and to realize that the old religious superstitions were just that - superstitions.


You bet they can! Morality is completely natural. It is based on what it means to be a rational being. It has nothing to do with any god or gods.


I agree very much, but I wouldn't blame Luther and Calvin. There were fairly true to the traditions they received. The "blame" lies with the ignorant primitive traditions that were accepted as the "inerrant and infallible Word of God."


Well, the Goddess seems every bit as "superstitious" as any other god. Are you using it as a metaphor?

Again, it's great to have you present your points of view. I look forward to discussing them with you.

Richard

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
02-10-2014, 07:24 AM
Hey there SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Your name makes me think that you have an interest in Thelemic Magick, of the kind put forth by Aleister Crowley. Is that correct?

Your introductory epistle to Yahweh is pretty "spicy." You sound like someone with an opinion. That bodes well for some interesting conversation.


I don't see the connection. Religion began as a response by ignorant primitive humans to the mysteries of existence. Like children who think their parents are all powerful and all knowing, so ignorant humans projected their sense of agency onto a "super person" who made everything. They had no other explanation.


I agree with Thomas Paine, but your reference to Darwin makes no sense to me. Non-human animals have no "morality" because they don't have the faculties required for moral agency. A moral agent is defined as any being able to make moral judgments and be subject to them. Moral agents must possess two faculties. They must be self-aware else they could not make judgments with respect to their own actions and so could not be held responsible. And in as much as moral judgments are stated as propositions, they must have a faculty of language. which is required if we are to develop a moral philosophy. I discuss this at length in my article Why Most Animals are Not Philosophers: Fatal Flaws in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for God (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/01/18/why-animals-are-not-moral-agents-fatal-flaws-in-dr-craigs-moral-argument-for-god/).


The fact that those "caring, reflective" human animals evolved contradicts the idea that nature could not account for morality. From my perspective, morality is a natural aspect of what it means to be a rational being. I explain this in two articles. The main argument is presented in an article called The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/25/the-logic-of-love-a-natural-theory-of-morality/) and the second article is called Morality is Objective, Like a Pair of Scales: Another Fatal Flaw in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for God (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/12/22/morality-is-objective-like-a-pair-of-scales-another-fatal-flaw-in-dr-craigs-moral-argument-for-god/).


Well ain't that a fact!


Too true.


I couldn't agree more. I explain my point of view in an article called The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/18/the-inextricable-sexism-of-the-bible/).


Well, if it weren't one thing it probably would have been another. I'm just glad we made it far enough to being to think for ourselves and to realize that the old religious superstitions were just that - superstitions.


You bet they can! Morality is completely natural. It is based on what it means to be a rational being. It has nothing to do with any god or gods.


I agree very much, but I wouldn't blame Luther and Calvin. There were fairly true to the traditions they received. The "blame" lies with the ignorant primitive traditions that were accepted as the "inerrant and infallible Word of God."


Well, the Goddess seems every bit as "superstitious" as any other god. Are you using it as a metaphor?

Again, it's great to have you present your points of view. I look forward to discussing them with you.

Richard


Thank You so much for the Kind Welcome. :)

Yes, i'm using the "Goddess" as basically a Metaphor. I should've clarified that. :D Yeah, I you're are also correct in regards to Luther and Calvin. Both of them were nursed with the milk of their Mother. (You make a good point there!)

First of all, I actually don't have any interest in Thelema or ceremonial magick at all. Let me explain how I came up with Sophia-Baphomet777 thing. I associate the Sophia and the number 7 with the Goddess. Now I was thinking of the Greek word SOPHIA (WISDOM) and BAPHOMET popped into my mind. I seemed to have recalled a connection there.

It was the Sophia-Baphomet as per the Atbash cipher theory,

With the Atbash Cipher: Alef Yud Pe Vav Shin = SOPHIA
The word Baphomet: Taf Mem Vav Pe Bet = BAPHOMET

The word Sophia that translates into "Wisdom" in English. Well then, in my mind I interpreted Sophia-Baphomet as Wisdom-Head or "Head of Wisdom"

The "Tree of Life" also came to mind in regards to the the number 7. I just simply counted the other Sephiroth below Binah and came up with the 7 on my own. It was really that simple. :lol:

Hence, the Binah (Sophia,Wisdom) as Baphometic (Head) and the Seven (7) other Sephiroth or Numerations.

As for the 777, the truth of the matter is that I borrowed the concept of Thelema triplicate 777 zig-zag lightning-flash down the Tree of Life. That's all. Actually, I had no idea about until I read about the 777 association with the Tree of Life.

So, I thought it was actually kind of cool and decided to use it in my User Name. And there you have it. :winking0071: