Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 37 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 365
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Tn.
    Posts
    80
    The "Ultra Sciency" ideas in the Bible!

    Times the Bible has been proven right in Science,



    ~Sometimes it rains a lot. Sometimes this makes rainbows appear.
    ~There are fish in the sea.
    ~Whales are Big. Their mouths are often big enough for a human to fit into.
    ~Jerusalem was taken in one day....That's gotta be worth something?

    Now open your eyes BIG BIG and live beyond the 21st century! The Bible is full of ultra-scientific ideas beyond our current technologies! LMAO.

    (PREY!)
    The Meaning of Life is to Eat the Dam Apple! - "Wisdom comes from asking questions."

    I am the Demon Child of Wisdom and Understanding.
    I am HER tantric monk and SHE my Left-Hand Priestess.
    I perch on HER brink, waiting for a summons from the Queen.
    I dance in response to HER teasing and testing.
    I leap into Her depth, HER perfect and Horrible Mystery!

    לילית


  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    677

    Moral problems with the Biblical God

    If God ordered the death of the first born in Egypt even though the firstborn cannot be held morally responsible for their father's actions, then it is clear that the Biblical God acts OUTSIDE of any moral laws .

    If nowadays a man committed a crime and then the court ordered the execution of his children as punishment, we would not regard the court as just and fair.

    God punished the Egyptians for not letting the Hebrews go by killing their first born. Yet the firstborn were innocent children.

    How can this be explained?

    It is possible for any person to fall into one of the following categories -

    moral = people following a law
    immoral = people who break a law
    amoral = people who break a law but don't recognize it
    super-moral = people who are not subject to a law

    The law prohibiting the taking of human life: if people break this law then they can be described as immoral or amoral. But God created all life and so all life belongs to Him. So God is not subject to this law.

    If God created our world and our universe, then it is reasonable to assume that He can do what he wants without breaking any laws. One day he might destroy the whole universe and recreate another.

    If God is beyond moral law then if God commands you to do something, then you have absolute authority to do it no matter how objectionable it might seem.

    So most arguments about the badness or goodness of God are attempts to reduce God to a human level, so as to make Him accountable.
    Last edited by Craig.Paardekooper; 06-06-2014 at 05:30 AM.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello Cheow
    NO, No, no! Human consumption was not the reason that animals were sacrificed under the Mosaic Law. Yes, the priests did eat some of the sacrificed meat, but that is not the reason the animals were sacrificed in the first place. It clearly states in the Mosaic Law that the killing of animals and the shedding of blood is required by the Biblegod to cleanse and forgive iniquity.
    Hi Rose,
    Yes, it is for human consumption and there are numerous verses in the BIble that says so ...for the priests, the family members and others. I have been a taoist before and we consume those food that was prayed in the temple. Nothing is wasted. It goes the same for the worship of the Bible God and for all religions such as Buddhism, Islam etc. Those unconsumed food were given away in charity. It is believe by giving the unconsumed food in charity and kindness, blessings are reciprocated. It is certainly mentally healthy to know that we have done good things for our fellowmen who were less privileged.

    The Bible most certainly does declare that natural bodily functions are sinful! If it was merely because bodily discharges are dirty as you say, then why aren't sacrifices requires every time someone takes a crap or a pee? Feces really is dirty the minute it comes out of the body, whereas semen and menstrual fluids are not.
    No, bodily function is not sinful but the unlawful pervous act of bodily function is sinful. Show me a verse that says bodily function is sinful... if not then that is crap. Feces and pee that just came out of the body from healthy people are not considered as dirty as the germs that comes with the feces and pee are mostly killed or were neutralised by good bacteria, but when bodily discharges be it feces, pee, menses, semen are not wash for some time are considered as dirty as the bad germs will start to grow exponentially.

    There is nothing unethical about killing animals for food, but we are not talking about the ethics of killing animals for food. What we are talking about is the notion that is promoted in the Bible, that somehow the killing of an animal as is required under the Mosaic Law, cleanses people and forgives their sins. Sacrificing animals and humans to appease a capricious god is a very barbaric and primitive idea that many cultures practiced in ancient times. It is an idea born out of ignorance, and needs to be soundly rejected.
    As I have said before and [I] have given some verses to prove that it is not the sacrifice that is important but charity, kindness, forgiveness, righteousness, repentance that comes with the offerings that is important. We are equally barbaric if we think of ourselves killing animals for food to fill our stomachs and make us happy during our celebrations. I see no difference between festive celebrations and sin offerings. To me it is like a barbeque session to celebrate festivities or to celebrate forgiveness of sin. In fact ,if you think of it, many of our festive celebrations and holidays are in fact pagan worshipping....Easter is in fact worshipping of the god Esther, Sunday is worshipping the Sun god, Thursday...the god Thor, Saturday...the god Saturn, Xmas, the worship of Christ or the worship of Santa Claus, Halloween... worship of spirits?, Valentine's Day...the worship of St. Valentine etc. As such and to be fair, then if celebration of sin forgiveness is to be abolish so are our many festivities which were pagan worshipping in origin. See wiki on festive pagan worshipping:

    http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/holidays2.htm

    The sacrifice of animals in sin offering serves many purposes:
    1. It reminds us that we sin everyday even without knowing and that God will forgive our sin if we repent or ask for forgiveness of sin.
    2. It reminds us that if we sin, we may end up like the slaughtered animals
    3. It helps us to do charity to the poor who can't even afford meat or nutritious foods
    4. The sacrificial animal serves as a witness to the covenant between God and man.
    5. The death of the sacrificial animals signify the death of Jesus for the forgiveness of sin and a way to eternal life if we believe in Jesus
    6. It serves as a festive celebration for goodwill and friendship among the people.

    What the Bible is full of is myths and fairy tales. It is full of the imagining of primitive men who were ignorant of science and thus made up gods to fill the gaps in their knowledge. Fortunately many people throughout history have took off their religious blinders and discovered great things that has helped humankind greatly. No thanks to the Biblegod, people discovered antibiotics and all the other medical discoveries that helped humans to live healthier lives.
    As I said before, there are many ultra-scientific ideas which you consider as myths and fairy tales that were present in the Bible and we are on the verge of doing what Jesus disciples have done... raising the dead, curing illnesses instantly etc. BTW, where did the fungus that the antibiotics made came from? There were ancient therapies that made use of antibiotics such as using spider webs, moulds to treat wounds etc. I believe God let us develop ourselves the technologies as we mature...or do we want to be spoon fed in everything? The important thing is not the technologies but how we used the technologies for good or for evil? It is like teaching Hitler how to make atomic weapons and get everyone of us killed and the world destroyed. You don't give loaded guns to children, do you?

    I have asked a question previously and I am not sure why you never answer it: Will humans developed to such an advanced , say a thousand years from now, be able to create animals, plants, the sun, planets etc.? or supposed we managed to reach a stage of inter stellar travel, will the primitive inhabitants of a habitable planet that we visited see us as gods with our advanced technologies... a super intelligent beings? What should we do to ensure that these people will developed and used advanced technologies in a safe and good way if we taught them? Do we teach them everything gradually to allow them to learn and cope on their own with some help from us so as not to let them go into cultural shock? From experience with our own primitive people such as the Indian tribes of the Amazon, the pigmies of the Congo, we know that it is impossible to teach primitive people to adapt to our modern day lives in such a short span of time; it may require centuries with many hurdles to overcome...education, culture, science, laws etc.

    God Bless.
    Last edited by CWH; 06-06-2014 at 05:46 AM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    If God ordered the death of the first born in Egypt even though the firstborn cannot be held morally responsible for their father's actions, then it is clear that the Biblical God acts OUTSIDE of any moral laws .

    If nowadays a man committed a crime and then the court ordered the execution of his children as punishment, we would not regard the court as just and fair.

    God punished the Egyptians for not letting the Hebrews go by killing their first born. Yet the firstborn were innocent children.

    How can this be explained?
    Same as I put it to you Craig, the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US forces killed every one including thousands of children who were not blamed for the crimes of their fathers who were not morally involved in the atrocities of WW2. This was done to force a quick surrender of the Japanese forces so as to save millions of Americans and Japanese lives but at the expense of thousands of women and children; how can this be explained? And Rose will declare gender bias against women and the works of bronze age men.

    One way to explain is the law of the universal good.... between the devil and the deep blue sea. This is an ethical question in which there seems to be no/either right or wrong ...To sacrifice a small number of lives for the saving of a large number of lives.....To sacrifice evil criminal people or the good people...which one do you choose? To sacrifice hopeless people or to sacrifice people with hope? Unlike humans, what God can destroy, He can raise. What God killed, He can brought them back to life again; where is the issue? And the ones He raised will be better than the ones killed as with the children of Job analogous to destroying faulty cars to make better ones.

    It is possible for any person to fall into one of the following categories -

    moral = people following a law
    immoral = people who break a law
    amoral = people who break a law but don't recognize it
    super-moral = people who are not subject to a law

    The law prohibiting the taking of human life: if people break this law then they can be described as immoral or amoral. But God created all life and so all life belongs to Him. So God is not subject to this law.

    If God created our world and our universe, then it is reasonable to assume that He can do what he wants without breaking any laws.
    It is the same as any law in which there are exceptions. It is ok to kill and murder your enemies in wars. It is ok for the police car to over speed in the course of their duty in fighting crimes; it is ok to kill in self-defense. Or do you prefer a law that is rigid and unchangeable regardless of prudence and good reason. Do you condemn someone who steal food in order to feed his starving dying wife and children? The Sabbath is made for Man and not Man for the Sabbath; the Law is made for Man and not Man for the Law...understand?

    God Bless.
    Last edited by CWH; 06-06-2014 at 06:36 AM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    677
    Same as I put it to you Craig, the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US forces killed every one including thousands of children who were not blamed for the crimes of their fathers who were not morally involved in the atrocities of WW2. This was done to force a quick surrender of the Japanese forces so as to save millions of Americans and Japanese lives but at the expense of thousands of women and children; how can this be explained? And Rose will declare gender bias against women and the works of bronze age men.

    One way to explain is the law of the universal good.... between the devil and the deep blue sea. This is an ethical question in which there seems to be no/either right or wrong ...To sacrifice a small number of lives for the saving of a large number of lives.....To sacrifice evil criminal people or the good people...which one do you choose? To sacrifice hopeless people or to sacrifice people with hope? Unlike humans, what God can destroy, He can raise. What God killed, He can brought them back to life again; where is the issue? And the ones He raised will be better than the ones killed as with the children of Job analogous to destroying faulty cars to make better ones.
    My point was that God can kill regardless of innocence, so must be beyond moral law.

    Your point seems to be that killing the innocent may be an act for the greater good, and therefore is motivated by the moral law.

    Your other point is that when God kills, he can also raise up - so an apparent loss of life could actually be a good thing - if what you are raised up to is better.
    Last edited by Craig.Paardekooper; 06-06-2014 at 07:21 AM.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    677
    Another passage that will need an explanation is the one where a woman undergoes trial if she is suspected of unfaithfulness

    She has to drink water mixed with dirt from the temple floor. If she falls ill, she is guilty.

    Given that dirt and germs generally make a person ill, this law will convict many innocent people as guilty. So this law seems both unfair and inefficient.

    It is unfair because many people will be found guilty who are in fact innocent. And the law is stupid because it is inefficient at achieving it's desired purpose - namely the separating of the guilty from the innocent.

    To ensure that the innocent were NEVER falsely convicted would require that the innocent were always protected from the effects of the dirt - a supernatural intervention in every case. And to ensure that the guilty are ALWAYS found guilty would require that their immune systems be suppressed supernaturally, so that they always fall ill.

    Would it not have been better for the man to gather evidence and produce witnesses, rather than subject the woman to eating poisonous dirt and seeing if God will save her? In the Middle Ages the same concept was applied to people suspected of a crime. They put their arms into boiling water. If they remain un-burnt they were innocent.

    This case is interesting because if God commanded it so then God created a rather stupid law because it does not separate the guilty from the innocent. The law could only possibly be effective if God intervened supernaturally in every case - it would have been easier for God to just say who the innocent party was rather than get them to eat dirt then save them from it.

    And the unnecessary stress involved for the woman.
    Last edited by Craig.Paardekooper; 06-06-2014 at 07:53 AM.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    My point was that God can kill regardless of innocence, so must be beyond moral law.

    Your point seems to be that killing the innocent may be an act for the greater good, and therefore is motivated by the moral law.
    My point is God ways and thoughts are higher than ours. What seems to be immoral can turn out to be moral. We may not be able to understand some of the things that God did; same as we may not be able to understand why a person behaves the way he behaves, There must be a reason which we have yet to comprehend. You seems to like rigid inflexible laws whereas my point is it is unwise to have rigid inflexible laws which do not accept exceptions which may turned out to be cruel and unfair. God laws are not rigid and is flexible; it is based on justice, mercy and reasonable.

    Yes, the act of the greater good of which examples are found in several areas in the Bible. A very good example, the death of Jesus saves millions who believe in Him.

    Your other point is that when God kills, he can also raise up - so an apparent loss of life could actually be a good thing - if what you are raised up to is better.
    Show me the passage in the Bible in which what God raised is bad? If not, my point stands.

    Isaiah 55:8-9
    8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
    9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.




    God Bless.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    If God ordered the death of the first born in Egypt even though the firstborn cannot be held morally responsible for their father's actions, then it is clear that the Biblical God acts OUTSIDE of any moral laws .

    If nowadays a man committed a crime and then the court ordered the execution of his children as punishment, we would not regard the court as just and fair.

    God punished the Egyptians for not letting the Hebrews go by killing their first born. Yet the firstborn were innocent children.

    How can this be explained?

    It is possible for any person to fall into one of the following categories -

    moral = people following a law
    immoral = people who break a law
    amoral = people who break a law but don't recognize it
    super-moral = people who are not subject to a law

    The law prohibiting the taking of human life: if people break this law then they can be described as immoral or amoral. But God created all life and so all life belongs to Him. So God is not subject to this law.

    If God created our world and our universe, then it is reasonable to assume that He can do what he wants without breaking any laws. One day he might destroy the whole universe and recreate another.

    If God is beyond moral law then if God commands you to do something, then you have absolute authority to do it no matter how objectionable it might seem.

    So most arguments about the badness or goodness of God are attempts to reduce God to a human level, so as to make Him accountable.
    Hello Craig,

    You bring up a lot of good points. But the bottom line is the only way humans can understand anything is through our human understanding, this is why it becomes very obvious that the Biblegod is a construct of the human mind.

    It would make no sense whatsoever for a creator god to give moral laws to his creation, and then proceed to command that they break those very laws?? And if god is not subject to his own laws, then why give them in the first place?? Of course the only answer to those questions is that man is the author of all those biased and senseless laws found in the Bible. The Bible only brings confusion to any reasonable and logical mind trying to figure it out, because of the abundance of contradictions it contains.

    The whole point of my booklet Gender Bias in the Bible is to show how biased and unjust many of the biblical laws are, proving that their origins lie in the minds of men. When I began to question all the inconsistencies in the Bible as you are doing now, is when I came to the conclusion that the ONLY possible solution to the problem of all the immoralities and unjust behavior is man-made.

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    Another passage that will need an explanation is the one where a woman undergoes trial if she is suspected of unfaithfulness

    She has to drink water mixed with dirt from the temple floor. If she falls ill, she is guilty.

    Given that dirt and germs generally make a person ill, this law will convict many innocent people as guilty. So this law seems both unfair and inefficient.

    It is unfair because many people will be found guilty who are in fact innocent. And the law is stupid because it is inefficient at achieving it's desired purpose - namely the separating of the guilty from the innocent.

    To ensure that the innocent were NEVER falsely convicted would require that the innocent were always protected from the effects of the dirt - a supernatural intervention in every case. And to ensure that the guilty are ALWAYS found guilty would require that their immune systems be suppressed supernaturally, so that they always fall ill.

    Would it not have been better for the man to gather evidence and produce witnesses, rather than subject the woman to eating poisonous dirt and seeing if God will save her? In the Middle Ages the same concept was applied to people suspected of a crime. They put their arms into boiling water. If they remain un-burnt they were innocent.

    This case is interesting because if God commanded it so then God created a rather stupid law because it does not separate the guilty from the innocent. The law could only possibly be effective if God intervened supernaturally in every case - it would have been easier for God to just say who the innocent party was rather than get them to eat dirt then save them from it.

    And the unnecessary stress involved for the woman.
    Hi Craig,

    The only question that needs to be asked to understand the origins of the jealousy law is: who could possibly invent such a barbaric law? The answer is A JEALOUS MAN! His fingerprints are all over it.

    If you were to apply the same logic and reason to the many other unjust and immoral laws found in the Bible, your conclusions will be the same. Over and over again, unnecessary stress and harm is inflicted upon innocent parties, all because of the barbaric laws found in the Bible and attributed to its god. That in and of itself should be enough to chuck the Bible into the dustbin of history as a moral guidebook.

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    Originally Posted by Rose

    Hello Cheow
    NO, No, no! Human consumption was not the reason that animals were sacrificed under the Mosaic Law. Yes, the priests did eat some of the sacrificed meat, but that is not the reason the animals were sacrificed in the first place. It clearly states in the Mosaic Law that the killing of animals and the shedding of blood is required by the Biblegod to cleanse and forgive iniquity.
    Hi Rose,
    Yes, it is for human consumption and there are numerous verses in the BIble that says so ...for the priests, the family members and others. I have been a taoist before and we consume those food that was prayed in the temple. Nothing is wasted. It goes the same for the worship of the Bible God and for all religions such as Buddhism, Islam etc. Those unconsumed food were given away in charity. It is believe by giving the unconsumed food in charity and kindness, blessings are reciprocated. It is certainly mentally healthy to know that we have done good things for our fellowmen who were less privileged.
    The reason for the sacrifice was to appease a god who was angry with human sinfulness! Yes, the food was eaten, BUT that was NOT the reason the animal was killed in the first place ... the animal was killed because of sin.


    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    No, bodily function is not sinful but the unlawful pervous act of bodily function is sinful. Show me a verse that says bodily function is sinful... if not then that is crap. Feces and pee that just came out of the body from healthy people are not considered as dirty as the germs that comes with the feces and pee are mostly killed or were neutralised by good bacteria, but when bodily discharges be it feces, pee, menses, semen are not wash for some time are considered as dirty as the bad germs will start to grow exponentially.
    Are you telling me that nocturnal emissions are considered a unlawful act??
    Deut.23:10-11 If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp: But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again.

    Or that a woman's menstrual cycle is an unlawful act?? In the verse below it clearly says that a sin offering needs to be made for the issue of a woman's uncleanness.
    Lev.15:29-30 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.


    Feces is a waste product and thus contains harmful bacteria! Semen and menses are not waste products. The Bible says that people are unclean after emissions of semen or menstrual fluids, but not after taking a crap! Pretty crazy stuff!


    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •