|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:59 pm
 |
|
|
 |
SaintChaos ProjectOmicron88 SaintChaos ProjectOmicron88 Theophrastus SaintChaos [...]then that should be your answer. if your creations were running about rampant sinning so corruptly they cant save themselves, you just gonna stand there? you should read about the story of Soddom and Gamorrah how the entire CITY went so corrupt and were so drowning in sin they could not save them self. why do you think the flood happened? look at it this way, when a fire starts and it gets out of control, you try to put it out before it engulfs everything around it, SPREADING and DESTROYING everything that comes near it. Quoted for lulz. Are you serious? Did you just tell me that those people got out of control? Out of control? So what is it? Is God omnipotent or not? Seems like a pretty strong contradiction to his own claims about himself. If the Bible is true, God is a murderer. He killed every single person on earth with the exception of 8. He drowned his entire creation. He burned down cities and tribes, swallowed up armies and even tortured and killed his own son. And then people tell me he's loving? Sorry, friend; I call bullshit. Through the complex series of segues that are my thought processes, you have reminded me of something else. I have heard Christians say that we know morality because God puts his morals into our hearts before we're even born. First of all, morality is learned through empirical observation and learning...this is why parents discipline their children. Second, if we already know good moral values, why does God feel it necessary to reiterate every single moral he supposedly already gave us? (read: Decalogue) lol thats the first time ive ever heard that. i know the bible says that God made us in his image but that is a very VAGUE statement and can be taken many ways. in fact, our morality is of our own choice. its not something that god embeds in us, otherwise, as you said, what would be the point of reiterating what was already in us. but its not. according to the bible we are burdened with sin, and our bodies naturally seek after the desires of the flesh, so morality couldnt possibly be already embedded into us. And that, in itself, is probably the biggest contradiction of them all. Every religion and every sect is so certain they're right and everyone else is wrong. If religion is supposed to be self-evident, why doesn't everyone have their stories straight? simple, people like to come up with their own ideas either because of many reasons. one of them being because they don't accept what they read, therefore they come up with new words or new concepts and twist and wrap what was original, and corrupt it into something else. and thus you have different "versions" of the original. regarding the bible the most common "other" versions are the King James, New King James, Book of Mormon, Catholic Bible, NIV, and i think some others.
Ah, but most will argue that THEIRS is the true word of God. So whose is it? I know WHY it happens, but the fact that it happens at all should raise some red flags. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 4:35 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:15 pm
|
|
|
|
SaintChaos Yes to all those things except the last one. He punishes us each "separately". all our sins are cleansed because of jesus but we are all EACH held accountable for the sins we CHOOSE to do.
That's the issue, though; I didn't choose to sin! I only followed the nature that I inherited from Adam's actions, according to your mythos. Again, no legal system in history would be just or fair if it punished the relatives of a criminal in addition to the criminal himself. And I still hold that it was God's action or inaction that allowed Sin to enter humanity in the first place.
SaintChaos evade? pfft, whats the point of evading? im just responding to what you said in the way that i saw it and interpreted what you were saying to me. if theres something i misunderstood about what you said, please reiterate any given point. however my brother said i have a tendency to go around someones question without directly answering it, so i do apologize if thats what ive done. Now in regards to your statement here, he has merely "set" the place. it is up to us what we "decide" to do. man has a will does he not? what WE choose to do is merely of consequence to ourself. suffering and chaos is caused by two things: 1)our own fault or 2) those around us every action has a consequence, good or bad does it not? so to merely blame it on god i think is a cowards way out of taking account for the actions an individual decides to make on their own.
First off I don't accept your assertions on the source of suffering and chaos because you have not yet convinced me of the veracity of the Christian creation myth and its attendant doomsday prophecies. Second, if God set up the place, then took his hands off, his mercy and benevolence fall into question. You seem to be saying that God is treating this world like an experiment, and he's now playing shadow puppets instead of being personally involved. If God was so smart and so capable, why has he had to change his tack so often? Why has he had to wipe out species and humans time and again? Why did he have to allow his son to die for something he let slip through the cracks in the first place? Is he an absentminded professor?
SaintChaos *sighs* please read what i say more carefully. i never said man has a FREE will. i dont believe in free will, i believe in "limited" will. thats why i am always saying man has "A" will....not a free will. and heres why. quoting my personal beliefs that are on monergism.com monergism.com "...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined.
If God limits our will then how else is he stringing us up? How else has he stacked the game against us? Wasn't dooming us with sin, wiping the Earth clean of life save for eight people and a boat full of critters enough? Wasn't he satisfied with omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence? Wasn't it enough that he exists outside of all time and knowledge, as modern doctrine teaches? Or is his inferiority complex still hungry? What other secret powers does he hold over us or restrict us from reaching? Why can't he play by his own rules? He has free will to poof anything into or out of existence and the best thing he can think of to get our loyalty is thousands of years of miracles and miseries followed a sudden thousands of years of the "hands off" treatment? That's like your dad leaving you when you're ten and only writing letters after that.
SaintChaos im going to do some research on the word "unicorn" so ill reply to this very thing later. because my bible uses the word "wild ox" but we'll see. but in regards to your statement in generalities, do WE not slaughter thousands of creatures either for game or for food? do some people not "abuse" their pets for self worth or for selfish self gain? and as recently do we not use animals for scientific testing as they're being tortured by these chemicals or going against their possible will but they can't speak back to us about it? the Planet of the Apes is a classic example of this very thing, if our world was reversed im pretty sure itd be exactly to what Planet of the Apes describe. So pointing fingers at god for something we do WORSE then what he would do, is HIGHLY hypocritical. but he didn't wipe out every single animal. he DID indeed spare two creatures of every creature so they could repopulate. two of each creature.....theres THOUSANDS of creatures that he saved even if its just two of each kind, it quickly adds up. so maybe thousands died, but thousands were just as equally saved.
I'll save you the trouble - the word used is re'em which does not have a translation. It has been made analogous to the ox, the rhinoceros and the unicorn because it describes an animal with a single horn on its head. However, the value of my statement is only increased by the fact that if, as Christians believe, the word of God is true then why for centuries upon centuries was "unicorn," as the KJV titles it, good enough? Only when Christianity was losing its strength in the face of greater education for the populace did they change the interpretation to something more acceptable to wise people. God's Word Is Perfect (but we'll give it updates so it doesn't look too silly!).
Also, what?! Thousands died but thousands were saved? I think it's pretty foolish to state, even thousands of years ago, that 2 of each species (or kind as the Bible puts it - vague enough for ya?) is hardly a large slice of any type of animal. If you took two of every distinct race of human you'd have, perhaps, several hundred people - of the six billion on Earth. Don't belittle my statement by saying that it evens out ("there's THOUSANDS of creatures that he saved even if it's just two of each kind, it quickly adds up."), when it's clear that en exponentially greater number of animals died than were saved. Why didn't God just engineer something that killed humans? Also, despite what Creationist museums and ID supporters think, the evidence against a simultaneous global flood is so magnanimous that it makes the flood argument laughable.
And you're further eroding your integrity by, for a second time, comparing what God does (mass murder, animal slaughter on a near-global scale), with what man does. What is your point? That we're no better than God? That speaks poorly to his shining perfection. Or that God does stuff that we emulate? Well, like father, like son. I don't see why you bring up what people do when we're talking about what God odes.
SaintChaos i dont know what your problem is honestly, but the WHOLE POINT of my statement was to say that, and to quote the bible "harsh words bring up strife". what is the point of me saying something that isn't necessary? what is the point of me getting all angry and stupid just because someone is refuting me? you tell me, whats the point of that? again i say, i happily recognize that you believe differently than me and for me to take anything personal is completely pointless and stupid. i REFUSE to take anything personal. and thus id rather show "smilely" faces then to show unnecessary harsh words and "angry" childish faces.
My problem is that you shouldn't waste my time typing things about how much you're keeping reserved, how regal your refutations are. It's just self-flattery that has no place in a debate and draws what I'm attempting to keep logical into a subjective realm.
SaintChaos you know for one who presumes that im being condenscending, your just merely mocking in this particular statement. a little hypocritical aren't we? i merely capitalize things because i feel like it. theres no grand reasoning behind it. smile do you not capitalize your own name? its merely a habit for me.
I'm not picking on what you choose to capitalize, just that it's silly the extremes people go to in order to make sure their idea seems Important! (note the capital I) This statement was nothing against you in the least and more just picking on the grammatical self-importance of religious texts.
SaintChaos okay that makes A LOT more sense than what you said earlier. and in that case i say again, the things that were done to him were willfully chosen by what the people wanted to do to him. man has a limited will but he did indeed choose those things. jesus allowed it to happen because it was inevitable of what his goal was for dieing on the cross. he knew what was going to happen and willfully choose to let them do those things. what...you thinking taking on the sins of the world would be a walk in the park? Jesus was chastised and fought against for his entire time on earth and they didn't take likely to blasphemers since he directly told them that he was the son of god, they considered it blasphemy, and which is also considered an unforgivable sin if im not mistaken. so for them to take him likely and not go unpunished? you bet their a** they're going to do something about it.
Interestingly, the doctrine that blaspheming the Holy Spirit was unforgivable came about after Jesus' death (the gospels were not written before Christ's time). However, I don't feel your above statement does anything to solidify your argument, only reiterating that you think Christ died for our sins. I don't feel that the doctrine of sin has yet been proven true in this debate, so I can only say that your above statement doesn't contribute to the argument, only re-states your opinion and interpretation of the Biblical story.
SaintChaos actually i hold nothing against the jews. in fact they are my very kinsmen, so to do so would only to be pushing away "myself". if that makes any sense. i was just merely stating that they ALONG WITH THE ROMANS had a part in what was done to jesus. which is sad, BECAUSE of that very fact, that jews are held negatively.....how hypocritical. but yes the romans did things too, everyone had a part. in fact the Romans were BRUTAL to any christian. ive read plenty of passages, not just from the bible, but from history books of what they did to Christians. so to reiterate my statement, everyone had a part in what they did to Jesus.
Funny that the first two times you posted it was the Jews' fault, now it's everyone's. I mean, I know that you hold us all accountable for sin because we're all sinners and Christ died for us, according to your beliefs, but it's still an odd occurrence that only now does the blame spread further. That's neither here nor there, though.
I thank you for keeping up your fighting spirit, but at this point I can conclude that nothing has been proven by your arguments other than that the Bible says some certain things, many of which are left up to interpretation. I can't wait till we start involving the real world in this, not the out-of-date Biblical interpretations of Sanskrit-cuddling celibates centuries before the discovery of a sun-centered universe, a round earth or the true, non-demonic source of a sneeze. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:24 am
|
|
|
|
ProjectOmicron88 SaintChaos ProjectOmicron88 SaintChaos ProjectOmicron88 Through the complex series of segues that are my thought processes, you have reminded me of something else. I have heard Christians say that we know morality because God puts his morals into our hearts before we're even born. First of all, morality is learned through empirical observation and learning...this is why parents discipline their children. Second, if we already know good moral values, why does God feel it necessary to reiterate every single moral he supposedly already gave us? (read: Decalogue) lol thats the first time ive ever heard that. i know the bible says that God made us in his image but that is a very VAGUE statement and can be taken many ways. in fact, our morality is of our own choice. its not something that god embeds in us, otherwise, as you said, what would be the point of reiterating what was already in us. but its not. according to the bible we are burdened with sin, and our bodies naturally seek after the desires of the flesh, so morality couldnt possibly be already embedded into us. And that, in itself, is probably the biggest contradiction of them all. Every religion and every sect is so certain they're right and everyone else is wrong. If religion is supposed to be self-evident, why doesn't everyone have their stories straight? simple, people like to come up with their own ideas either because of many reasons. one of them being because they don't accept what they read, therefore they come up with new words or new concepts and twist and wrap what was original, and corrupt it into something else. and thus you have different "versions" of the original. regarding the bible the most common "other" versions are the King James, New King James, Book of Mormon, Catholic Bible, NIV, and i think some others. Ah, but most will argue that THEIRS is the true word of God. So whose is it? I know WHY it happens, but the fact that it happens at all should raise some red flags.
Version Information
While preserving the literal accuracy of the 1901 ASV, the NASB has sought to render grammar and terminology in contemporary English. Special attention has been given to the rendering of verb tenses to give the English reader a rendering as close as possible to the sense of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. In 1995, the text of the NASB was updated for greater understanding and smoother reading. The New American Standard Bible present on the Bible Gateway matches the 1995 printing.
The New American Standard Bible Update - 1995
Easier to read:
* Passages with Old English "thee's" and "thou's" etc. have been updated to modern English.
* Words and Phrases that could be misunderstood due to changes in their meaning during the past 20 years have been updated to current English.
* Verses with difficult word order or vocabulary have been retranslated into smoother English.
* Sentences beginning with "And" have often been retranslated for better English, in recognition of differences in style between the ancient languages and modern English. The original Greek and Hebrew did not have punctuation as is found in English, and in many cases modern English punctuation serves as a substitute for "And" in the original. In some other cases, "and" is translated by a different word such as "then" or "but" as called for by the context, when the word in the original language allows such translation.
More accurate than ever:
* Recent research on the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament has been reviewed, and some passages have been updated for even greater fidelity to the original manuscripts.
* Parallel passages have been compared and reviewed.
* Verbs that have a wide range of meaning have been retranslated in some passages to better account for their use in the context.
And still the NASB:
* The NASB update is not a change-for-the-sake-of-change translation. The original NASB stands the test of time, and change has been kept to a minimum in recognition of the standard that has been set by the New American Standard Bible.
* The NASB update continues the NASB's tradition of literal translation of the original Greek and Hebrew without compromise. Changes in the text have been kept within the strict parameters set forth by the Lockman Foundation's Fourfold Aim.
* The translators and consultants who have contributed to the NASB update are conservative Bible scholars who have doctorates in Biblical languages, theology, or other advanced degrees. They represent a variety of denominational backgrounds.
Continuing a tradition:
The original NASB has earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation. The NASB update carries on the NASB tradition of being a true Bible translation, revealing what the original manuscripts actually say--not merely what the translator believes they mean. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:28 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:06 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: That's the issue, though; I didn't choose to sin! I only followed the nature that I inherited from Adam's actions, according to your mythos. Again, no legal system in history would be just or fair if it punished the relatives of a criminal in addition to the criminal himself. And I still hold that it was God's action or inaction that allowed Sin to enter humanity in the first place.
hmph. so using your logic here and to give an example to make sure i understand this right, when you use a cuss word you didn't choose to say it all on your own? it just suddenly popped out because its your "nature".
using the logic of that example is that what your REALLY saying? if thats the case bull CRAP. that is the biggest excuse ive ever heard for someone doing something wrong and then trying to justify it by saying "oh its my nature". theres something id like to call a "conscious" and im pretty sure even atheists believe in a conscious of good and wrong. it is in our nature to choose things, it is also in that same nature to know that we have a will that we can rightfully choose to do something.
if thats NOT what you meant by your statement then please reiterate.
however, regardless of how one person grows up or how they are taught, whether its in their nature or not, when it boils right down to the very last drop......its a choice. its ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a choice.
god this reminds me of my freaking roomate i had to live with who was 17. i used the "cussing" example because it reminds me over her freaking stupidity. im not a fan of the "F" word and most DEFINITELY not a fan of the "G-D word". and he used it quite frequently. i asked her to please refrain from using such strong words when being around me and her EXCUSE for her bull s**t was telling me that "oh i grew up with it, its a habit." bull s**t! its a freaking mental choice you decide to do. its not something embedded inside us that we willfully can not fight against.
for Christians. we ultimately can not escape sin, but it is still a choice of what sins we choose to decide each day.
*sighs and takes deep breath* excuse my irritation. memories of my roommate really piss me off easily sweatdrop
Quote: First off I don't accept your assertions on the source of suffering and chaos because you have not yet convinced me of the veracity of the Christian creation myth and its attendant doomsday prophecies. Second, if God set up the place, then took his hands off, his mercy and benevolence fall into question. You seem to be saying that God is treating this world like an experiment, and he's now playing shadow puppets instead of being personally involved. If God was so smart and so capable, why has he had to change his tack so often? Why has he had to wipe out species and humans time and again? Why did he have to allow his son to die for something he let slip through the cracks in the first place? Is he an absentminded professor?
Are you kidding me? YOUR ATHEIST! You don't believe in God and you dont believe in the bible right? neither is there proof of god nor is there proof of the things in the bible....
so how can you POSSIBLY expect me to "convince" you of things you will never believe? of things that have no proof? its a fools errand and its just arguing the argument.
if you cant be satisfied with what i tell you then lets just leave it at that and move on.
Quote: You seem to be saying that God is treating this world like an experiment, and he's now playing shadow puppets instead of being personally involved. If God was so smart and so capable, why has he had to change his tack so often? Why has he had to wipe out species and humans time and again? Why did he have to allow his son to die for something he let slip through the cracks in the first place? Is he an absentminded professor?
thats not at all what im saying. The purpose of any type of experiment is to see the results. But God knows past present and future, he doesn't "need" to see the results if he already knows them. If he had to see the results then he would be no better off then we are. God "changes his tack" according to what we do. Man falls, God saves man. Man messes up and cant save himself, then god comes up and helps and or cleanses the filth so that the still living "clean" doesn't become corrupted.
and honestly i really dont see your poitn of bringing up animals. im going to assume how high you hold animals is different from how high i hold them.
And again, his son or i should say "a part of himself" died but was resurrected.
And im going to say this yet again, the actions of man can not be blamed by God. it is our nature to sin, but it is our CHOICE of what we do. what happened to jesus was of pure choice of others of how they wanted to treat him.
Quote: If God limits our will then how else is he stringing us up? How else has he stacked the game against us? Wasn't dooming us with sin, wiping the Earth clean of life save for eight people and a boat full of critters enough? Wasn't he satisfied with omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence? Wasn't it enough that he exists outside of all time and knowledge, as modern doctrine teaches? Or is his inferiority complex still hungry? What other secret powers does he hold over us or restrict us from reaching? Why can't he play by his own rules? He has free will to poof anything into or out of existence and the best thing he can think of to get our loyalty is thousands of years of miracles and miseries followed a sudden thousands of years of the "hands off" treatment? That's like your dad leaving you when you're ten and only writing letters after that.
We are not doomed with sin, we are merely burdened. all for all these other accusations......so easy to mock and complain when your not the creator isnt it? to judge and accuse when you dont even have the comprehensibility of the knowledge he beholds compared to how we see things.
but wait thats right, you don't believe in god, and for as much as you can read on the bible, you're always going to see him this way and you're always going to be a critic just because you can right? its SO EASY for you to say something because you dont believe in it.
have you even read the entire bible?
Quote: Also, what?! Thousands died but thousands were saved? I think it's pretty foolish to state, even thousands of years ago, that 2 of each species (or kind as the Bible puts it - vague enough for ya?) is hardly a large slice of any type of animal. If you took two of every distinct race of human you'd have, perhaps, several hundred people - of the six billion on Earth. Don't belittle my statement by saying that it evens out ("there's THOUSANDS of creatures that he saved even if it's just two of each kind, it quickly adds up."), when it's clear that en exponentially greater number of animals died than were saved. Why didn't God just engineer something that killed humans? Also, despite what Creationist museums and ID supporters think, the evidence against a simultaneous global flood is so magnanimous that it makes the flood argument laughable. And you're further eroding your integrity by, for a second time, comparing what God does (mass murder, animal slaughter on a near-global scale), with what man does. What is your point? That we're no better than God? That speaks poorly to his shining perfection. Or that God does stuff that we emulate? Well, like father, like son. I don't see why you bring up what people do when we're talking about what God odes.
how you forgotten the fact that there are MORE speicies of animals than there are of humans? thats why i said the numbers would add up, even if it was just two of every kind and then add it all together, thats quite a large amount.
Species are the fundamental unit of biodiversity, but, of all the tens of millions of species that have existed on the earth, only a comparatively small percentage have been studied in detail. Some species have been well studied, such as many large mammal, butterfly, bird, plant, and insect species. But very little is known about the biology and distribution of vast numbers of species groups such as arthropods, fungi, and nematodes. In the past decade, scientists have discovered species in areas that were previously inaccessible, such as the tube worms in deep sea thermal vents and discovered new species even in relatively well populated areas.
There have been a number of efforts to estimate the number of species that are known and have been described. This is a challenging job because there are no central registries for species, and no one database. In May 2007, the Internet-based Encyclopedia of Life was announced which, when completed, will list all 1.8 million known plant and animal species.
hmm 1.8 million divided by two....WOW...thats a damn large amount don't you think? *sighs* need i say more? and also i didnt belittle your statement.
Quote: And you're further eroding your integrity by, for a second time, comparing what God does (mass murder, animal slaughter on a near-global scale), with what man does. What is your point? That we're no better than God? That speaks poorly to his shining perfection. Or that God does stuff that we emulate? Well, like father, like son. I don't see why you bring up what people do when we're talking about what God odes.
even the bible speaks of how we should "take the piece of lint out of our own eye before trying to remove it from our neighbor". my point mainly being the huge hypocrisy. you point fingers at god but have you looked at yourself? is mainly my point. you try to be such a critic of some celestial being while you're this tiny little being on one measly planet out of the never ending number of planets that probably exist in the universe? THATS my whole point. i just find it highly hypocritical, nothing more nothing less.
Quote: That speaks poorly to his shining perfection.
excuse me if im only human and im not perfect since perfection is a completely oxymoron in this world.
Quote: My problem is that you shouldn't waste my time typing things about how much you're keeping reserved, how regal your refutations are. It's just self-flattery that has no place in a debate and draws what I'm attempting to keep logical into a subjective realm.
let me ask you this, it sure is easy to attack when your not the target isnt it?
Quote: I'm not picking on what you choose to capitalize, just that it's silly the extremes people go to in order to make sure their idea seems Important! (note the capital I) This statement was nothing against you in the least and more just picking on the grammatical self-importance of religious texts.
or people are just typing that way out of habit
Quote: Interestingly, the doctrine that blaspheming the Holy Spirit was unforgivable came about after Jesus' death (the gospels were not written before Christ's time). However, I don't feel your above statement does anything to solidify your argument, only reiterating that you think Christ died for our sins. I don't feel that the doctrine of sin has yet been proven true in this debate, so I can only say that your above statement doesn't contribute to the argument, only re-states your opinion and interpretation of the Biblical story.
you've stated you own four bibles and have read at least some of one have you not? then from that statement i was to go about debating with you from BIBLICAL TERMS. if i were to debate from a scientific logical term then there would be nothing at all for me to say since god can not be proven or disproved and the things of the bible can also not be proven or disproved.
so whether you feel that something i say solidifies my side of the argument or not, its going to end in a stale mate cuz from how im seeing things going at this rate, neither side is being swayed to the other.
Quote: Funny that the first two times you posted it was the Jews' fault, now it's everyone's. I mean, I know that you hold us all accountable for sin because we're all sinners and Christ died for us, according to your beliefs, but it's still an odd occurrence that only now does the blame spread further. That's neither here nor there, though. I thank you for keeping up your fighting spirit, but at this point I can conclude that nothing has been proven by your arguments other than that the Bible says some certain things, many of which are left up to interpretation. I can't wait till we start involving the real world in this, not the out-of-date Biblical interpretations of Sanskrit-cuddling celibates centuries before the discovery of a sun-centered universe, a round earth or the true, non-demonic source of a sneeze.
i also have a tendency to not place my words very well and give an entirely different meaning. so if it came off as me just "blaming the jews" then its my own fault, but thats not what i meant to say and im in turn trying to reiterate what i SHOULD have said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:18 am
|
|
|
|
You falsely assume that using a certain word is a sin. Or that it is even offensive. This statement is pure subjectivity and useless to a debate. If I kill someone, that’s a choice that negatively impacts others and might lend credence to your argument, but saying that combinations of vowels and consonants constitutes sinning is only showing the pettiness of modern Christianity. Next.
SaintChaos however, regardless of how one person grows up or how they are taught, whether its in their nature or not, when it boils right down to the very last drop......its a choice. its ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a choice.
Yes, but there’s a difference between the Humanist and the Christian; the humanist is strong enough to take personal responsibility for their actions instead of blaming bad things on the devil and assuming that God will always pardon them.
The rest of your typing was just enforcing your own outlooks, not presenting information I can test, apply and use to draw conclusions. So let me isolate my favorite parts, instead.
SaintChaos […]neither is there proof of god nor is there proof of the things in the bible[...]so how can you POSSIBLY expect me to "convince" you of things you will never believe? of things that have no proof? its a fools errand and its just arguing the argument.[…]
Sure. The Bible cannot be proven real, valid or trustworthy. Delightful. So why are you even here? Also, check your statements. If the Bible cannot be proven then why have you posted pages of material to this forum? Even by your logic you're wasting your time.
SaintChaos […]so easy to mock and complain when your not the creator isnt it? to judge and accuse when you dont even have the comprehensibility of the knowledge he beholds compared to how we see things.
Yup. Hard to be something that’s imaginary.
SaintChaos have you even read the entire bible?
Yes, friend. It was required of my first semester in Christian apologetics. Would it entertain you to know that reading the entire Bible was a massive nail in my Christian belief's coffin?
SaintChaos how you forgotten the fact that there are MORE speicies of animals than there are of humans? thats why i said the numbers would add up, even if it was just two of every kind and then add it all together, thats quite a large amount. […] hmm 1.8 million divided by two....WOW...thats a damn large amount don't you think? *sighs* need i say more?
Your math is broken. I won’t pursue that. Regardless, you’re hurting your case by reminding us how many diverse species there are. Being kind to the Bible and using your estimate, God put 3.6 million animals and little critters on the Ark? Including giraffes, hippopotamuses, and crocodiles? Animals that need frequent full-body submersion in water? What about aquatic life that needs a certain salt content (or lack thereof) to survive? When all the Earth's waters mingled, why didn't most sea life perish in the resulting brackish soup? Not to mention all the natural poisonous chemicals that are normally on and in the earth, kept far away from bodies of water.
Hey, what about animals we don’t like such as venomous snakes, black widows, tapeworms? Did Noah bring an extra bevy of flies to feed the web spinning spiders? Did he let tapeworms, ringworms and heartworms infest his body? Did Noah’s family have to play host to all venereal diseases while everything else died? After all, bacteria and viruses are living things and Christian doctrine states that God created all living things in their current form. What a joke.
Regarding your statements on hypocrisy and perfection; blah. I feel no guilt attacking God’s character because if he’s real and gives a damn what I think about him he should pony up and defend himself instead of hiding behind vagaries.
SaintChaos if i were to debate from a scientific logical term then there would be nothing at all for me to say since god can not be proven or disproved and the things of the bible can also not be proven or disproved.
This is my favorite thing you said. It means we’re done, here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:12 am
|
|
|
|
Theophrastus You falsely assume that using a certain word is a sin. Or that it is even offensive. This statement is pure subjectivity and useless to a debate. If I kill someone, that’s a choice that negatively impacts others and might lend credence to your argument, but saying that combinations of vowels and consonants constitutes sinning is only showing the pettiness of modern Christianity. Next. SaintChaos however, regardless of how one person grows up or how they are taught, whether its in their nature or not, when it boils right down to the very last drop......its a choice. its ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a choice. Yes, but there’s a difference between the Humanist and the Christian; the humanist is strong enough to take personal responsibility for their actions instead of blaming bad things on the devil and assuming that God will always pardon them. The rest of your typing was just enforcing your own outlooks, not presenting information I can test, apply and use to draw conclusions. So let me isolate my favorite parts, instead. SaintChaos […]neither is there proof of god nor is there proof of the things in the bible[...]so how can you POSSIBLY expect me to "convince" you of things you will never believe? of things that have no proof? its a fools errand and its just arguing the argument.[…] Sure. The Bible cannot be proven real, valid or trustworthy. Delightful. So why are you even here? Also, check your statements. If the Bible cannot be proven then why have you posted pages of material to this forum? Even by your logic you're wasting your time. SaintChaos […]so easy to mock and complain when your not the creator isnt it? to judge and accuse when you dont even have the comprehensibility of the knowledge he beholds compared to how we see things. Yup. Hard to be something that’s imaginary. SaintChaos have you even read the entire bible? Yes, friend. It was required of my first semester in Christian apologetics. Would it entertain you to know that reading the entire Bible was a massive nail in my Christian belief's coffin? SaintChaos how you forgotten the fact that there are MORE speicies of animals than there are of humans? thats why i said the numbers would add up, even if it was just two of every kind and then add it all together, thats quite a large amount. […] hmm 1.8 million divided by two....WOW...thats a damn large amount don't you think? *sighs* need i say more? Your math is broken. I won’t pursue that. Regardless, you’re hurting your case by reminding us how many diverse species there are. Being kind to the Bible and using your estimate, God put 3.6 million animals and little critters on the Ark? Including giraffes, hippopotamuses, and crocodiles? Animals that need frequent full-body submersion in water? What about aquatic life that needs a certain salt content (or lack thereof) to survive? When all the Earth's waters mingled, why didn't most sea life perish in the resulting brackish soup? Not to mention all the natural poisonous chemicals that are normally on and in the earth, kept far away from bodies of water. Hey, what about animals we don’t like such as venomous snakes, black widows, tapeworms? Did Noah bring an extra bevy of flies to feed the web spinning spiders? Did he let tapeworms, ringworms and heartworms infest his body? Did Noah’s family have to play host to all venereal diseases while everything else died? After all, bacteria and viruses are living things and Christian doctrine states that God created all living things in their current form. What a joke. Regarding your statements on hypocrisy and perfection; blah. I feel no guilt attacking God’s character because if he’s real and gives a damn what I think about him he should pony up and defend himself instead of hiding behind vagaries. SaintChaos if i were to debate from a scientific logical term then there would be nothing at all for me to say since god can not be proven or disproved and the things of the bible can also not be proven or disproved. Quote: This is my favorite thing you said. It means we’re done, here regarding your last statement, painfully obvious |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:53 pm
|
|
|
|
SaintChaos ProjectOmicron88 SaintChaos ProjectOmicron88 SaintChaos ProjectOmicron88 Through the complex series of segues that are my thought processes, you have reminded me of something else. I have heard Christians say that we know morality because God puts his morals into our hearts before we're even born. First of all, morality is learned through empirical observation and learning...this is why parents discipline their children. Second, if we already know good moral values, why does God feel it necessary to reiterate every single moral he supposedly already gave us? (read: Decalogue) lol thats the first time ive ever heard that. i know the bible says that God made us in his image but that is a very VAGUE statement and can be taken many ways. in fact, our morality is of our own choice. its not something that god embeds in us, otherwise, as you said, what would be the point of reiterating what was already in us. but its not. according to the bible we are burdened with sin, and our bodies naturally seek after the desires of the flesh, so morality couldnt possibly be already embedded into us. And that, in itself, is probably the biggest contradiction of them all. Every religion and every sect is so certain they're right and everyone else is wrong. If religion is supposed to be self-evident, why doesn't everyone have their stories straight? simple, people like to come up with their own ideas either because of many reasons. one of them being because they don't accept what they read, therefore they come up with new words or new concepts and twist and wrap what was original, and corrupt it into something else. and thus you have different "versions" of the original. regarding the bible the most common "other" versions are the King James, New King James, Book of Mormon, Catholic Bible, NIV, and i think some others. Ah, but most will argue that THEIRS is the true word of God. So whose is it? I know WHY it happens, but the fact that it happens at all should raise some red flags. Version Information While preserving the literal accuracy of the 1901 ASV, the NASB has sought to render grammar and terminology in contemporary English. Special attention has been given to the rendering of verb tenses to give the English reader a rendering as close as possible to the sense of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. In 1995, the text of the NASB was updated for greater understanding and smoother reading. The New American Standard Bible present on the Bible Gateway matches the 1995 printing. The New American Standard Bible Update - 1995 Easier to read: * Passages with Old English "thee's" and "thou's" etc. have been updated to modern English. * Words and Phrases that could be misunderstood due to changes in their meaning during the past 20 years have been updated to current English. * Verses with difficult word order or vocabulary have been retranslated into smoother English. * Sentences beginning with "And" have often been retranslated for better English, in recognition of differences in style between the ancient languages and modern English. The original Greek and Hebrew did not have punctuation as is found in English, and in many cases modern English punctuation serves as a substitute for "And" in the original. In some other cases, "and" is translated by a different word such as "then" or "but" as called for by the context, when the word in the original language allows such translation. More accurate than ever: * Recent research on the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament has been reviewed, and some passages have been updated for even greater fidelity to the original manuscripts. * Parallel passages have been compared and reviewed. * Verbs that have a wide range of meaning have been retranslated in some passages to better account for their use in the context. And still the NASB: * The NASB update is not a change-for-the-sake-of-change translation. The original NASB stands the test of time, and change has been kept to a minimum in recognition of the standard that has been set by the New American Standard Bible. * The NASB update continues the NASB's tradition of literal translation of the original Greek and Hebrew without compromise. Changes in the text have been kept within the strict parameters set forth by the Lockman Foundation's Fourfold Aim. * The translators and consultants who have contributed to the NASB update are conservative Bible scholars who have doctorates in Biblical languages, theology, or other advanced degrees. They represent a variety of denominational backgrounds. Continuing a tradition: The original NASB has earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation. The NASB update carries on the NASB tradition of being a true Bible translation, revealing what the original manuscripts actually say--not merely what the translator believes they mean.
I'm not talking about versions of the Bible, I'm talking about the various sects in every religion. Presbyterian, Baptist, Catholic, Protestant, and so on for Christianity, Sunnis and Shi'ites for Islam, and so on and so forth. Even the different religions, too. A Hindu will insist he's right, while a Christian will do the same. And even in Christianity, the different sects bicker about differences in their versions and what's correct to preach. So which religion is right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
