Jump to content

Why Trust the Bible?


betsy

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Betsy, Science and Religion are two different realms of thought.  There's no point in comparing what it says in the Bible as consistent with some sort of scientific belief.  Like matter and anti-matter, they are best kept separated.  The divinely inspired authors of the Bible (Christian and Jewish canons alike) lacked such scientific knowledge.

 

 

The Bible isn't meant to be a scientific book.......it's not meant to be giving scientific proof or evidence!  They don't belong in the same realm, and science is quite limited in its capacity to know about the supernatural.   

HOWEVER......

........it just so happens that some statements in the Bible are consistent with science findings.

 

Just like the National Academy of Sciences had clearly stated:

Quote

"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience.

Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

An argument is given, along with some evidences to support the said argument.  What we're doing here is indulging in some philosophical reflections. 

 

 

Quote

 

In fact, there's actually two different stories of creation, one right after the other, in Genesis; two differing accounts of creation.  Both are SYMBOLIC.  They are ancient Hebrew traditions about the creation of the world (no one had a clue there was a "universe" beyond the planet Earth or even that the "planets" were actually other worlds you could land stuff on) and are in no way indicative, or supportive of, scientific fact (or contradictive thereof I might add).  That's precisely what i meant that the bible cannot be taken literally.  It must be taken in context, including the context of the contemporary knowledge of the scribes who put pen to paper at that time (or at those times, would be more accurate).

The reason I kept on about Bible translations was because I didn't want to quote something, only to have it thrown back at me for being "corrupted".  It may seem off topic, but like I asked, is the Revised Standard Version (which comes in Protestant and Catholic editions, of minimal difference as far as I'm concerned) acceptable to you?  I didn't mean to get off topic.  (But if you want to know, I have two bibles at home, a Revised Standard Version, 2d. Catholic Edition (RSV-2CE), and the New American Bible Rev. Ed. (NABRE)...whichever of these two is less corrupted to you I can quote from, but the RSV2CE is more similar to the KJV and a lot of former Anglican Catholics prefer this one over the NABRE.  But yeah maybe that's a bit off topic.  Just tell me if either of these is reasonably acceptable to you and I'll use it.)

The other reason I brought that up was that the reason there are differnt translations is that things are open to interpretation.  As I asked above, how many people here actually speak the languages they were originally written in well enough to actually know for a fact that these supposedly "corrupted" texts are that? And that, as I tried to point out, is precisely why you cannot "trust the bible" as if it were word-for-word literal truth.  Instead, it contains an inner truth, a message behind the mere words.  People need to stop examining the woods, tree by tree, as if that would give you an accurate picture of what the whole forest looks like.  Take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

 

 

 

 

No, you step back, and use your reason.

 

Quote

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

 

 

There are so many figures of speech in the Bible......however, the verses that are given as evidence to support the argument that the Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation, we can now take literally, thanks to science.  UNLESS, you have a dispute with science!

Let's be clear about it.  Please answer these questions.

 

You don't agree with science that the universe had a beginning?

You don't agree with science that there are creatures that are asexual?

You don't agree with science that the universe is stretching?

You don't agree with science's claim that in the early times, there were only one ocean and one super continent?

You don't agree with Darwinist scientists that life started in the water?

You don't agree with science that the human body is comprised of elements found in the dirt (earth's crust)?

You don't agree with science on the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
 

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's time for another recap, just so to refresh our memory on the evidences that have been given.



The following are some evidences for the argument that the Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation.

Only the Creator would know of these things that were verbally passed through generations and finally written in the Bible - thousands of years before science discovered and reaffirms them. More will be added.





All from the Book of Genesis 1 and 2:

*In the beginning (consistent with science's discovery that the universe had a beginning)

*All waters gather to one place, and land appear (consistent with science's claim that in the early times there was only one super ocean and only one super continent - Pangaea and Panthalassa)

*The waters bringing forth creatures that has life (compatible with evolutionist claim that life started in the water).

*"After their kind" in relation to reproduction - without any mention of genders, except to humans - male and female - (consistent with science discovery that some species don't require a mate in order to reproduce. Some creatures are asexual)

*God formed man from dust (consistent with science finding that the human body is made up of elements that comes from dirt/dust).

*God's curse towards the snake that it would from henceforth crawl on its belly and eat dust (compatible with science's discovery that snakes used to have limbs or legs)

*Man's dominion of animals (consistent with reality - as can be observed, even today)

------------------------

 



*Stretches the Heavens (consistent with science discovery that the universe is stretching). Take note that most of the verses uses the present tense "stretches." How appropriate! The universe is still stretching.

*Psalm 102:25-26, Isaiah 51:6, Hebrews 1:10-11 indicate the universe is wearing out (consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With just those few evidences being given so far (to show that the Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation)..........all I've read are all sorts of deflections...............mangled and senseless responses to the issue.                Wait till you see more evidence! :)

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation, another evidence is given to indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible, by revealing detailed knowledge of the physical world that was not understood by ‘science’ until many centuries, if not millennia, later.


The Hydrological Cycle
 

 

Quote

From the beginning of time when water first appeared, it has been constant in quantity and continuously in motion. Little has been added or lost over the years. The same water molecules have been transferred time and time again from the oceans and the land surface into the atmosphere by evaporation, dropped on the land as precipitation, and transferred back to the sea by rivers and groundwater. This endless circulation is known as the "hydrologic cycle"

https://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/defau...n&n=23CEC266-1

 


 

Quote

 

Biblical descriptions of the hydrologic cycle



Because water is a necessary component of life it is not surprising that the Bible has something to say on the distribution and movement of water.

The Bible does not raise these matters in a scientific or explanatory manner. Rather, God speaks to His people using common language and common concepts. Water is a common topic.


The Book of Job makes a number of points on what we today call the hydrologic cycle.
But unlike the reflections of Thales, Job provides a clear description of the concepts that underpin the hydrologic cycle:

“He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight” (Job 26:8).



Ecclesiastes 1 provides a statement of important concepts underpinning the hydrologic cycle as we know it today.

“The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again” (Ecclesiastes 1:6–7).


Embedded in these verses are the concepts of a cycle and of a water balance (conservation of matter). Ecclesiastes was written hundreds of years before Vitruvius first echoed similar concepts.


Elsewhere in the Bible, various hydrologic processes are further described. Evaporation is recorded in a number of other books:


Psalm 135:7 (evaporation)
Psalm 104:13 (precipitation)
Deuteronomy 33:13 (atmospheric and storage of ground water)
Isaiah 55:10 (process of infiltration and precipitation)
Genesis 16:7/Psalm 104:10 (release of groundwaters through springs)
Isaiah 4:3–5 (groundwater hydrology)

Again, these verses are not designed to ‘explain’ the hydrologic cycle, but to use visible works of nature as metaphors.


In summary, the physical descriptions of the water cycle used throughout the Bible to illustrate authority, blessings, and salvation are accurate.


Unlike the scholarly enquiries between 600 BC and AD 1600, the Bible does not present uncertainty, inaccuracy, or contradiction with its description of hydrologic processes. The hydrologic cycle is not described as subterranean waters sucked up into the mountains, to flow forth as springs that feed the rivers of the world.
Instead the
Bible paints a flawless picture of the dynamics and components of the water cycle more than a thousand years before the first ‘scientific’ measurement confirmed that this was so.

.

 


The Bible and the hydrologic cycle - creation.com

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-06-15 at 10:13 PM, TTM said:

Simple subjects become complex when studied by someone who has a strong motivation not to understand.

When presented by evidence showing your beliefs are false, ignore (refuse to process) the evidence and retreat back to your safe space.

Because remember, God likes to have tortured for eternity those creations of His that would prefer to use their "God given" rational mind and free will

I have to say the Bible gives an account of how God created the earth and universe in a very short period of six days.  This was how the Bible begins, but only takes up a few pages.  The rest of the Bible has a huge amount of information about how God dealt with Israel (first few books of the Bible - Pentateuch), Psalms and Proverbs, God's dealings with Israel and prophecies.  The New Testament gives the four gospels of Jesus Christ and several apostles give their account of the teachings of the christian religion. Ending with Revelation which has a lot of prophecy of the future. 

A central theme may be described in this verse for example:  "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."  Proverbs ch3 vs5

Another verse I can't put my finger on says the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (or wisdom).

People who set themselves in opposition to God and His word are definitely on the wrong path and need to reconsider while there is still time.  The way to do that is through prayerful study of the Bible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, betsy said:

The Bible isn't meant to be a scientific book.......it's not meant to be giving scientific proof or evidence!  They don't belong in the same realm, and science is quite limited in its capacity to know about the supernatural.   

Now you're getting my point.  I said precisely that! However, you say that, then right below you continue with the hydrological cycle, etc.  The ancient authors had no idea about that!!!!! You cannot match science to the Bible, even if it is to personally "confirm" the former. If you keep comparing Bible to science, one or the other will always come up short.

The best we can do with the creation myths in the Bible is to treat them as ancient Hebrew traditions.  One of those myths is the great flood.  Some say that the Hebrews were influenced by the ancient Mesopotamian myths of creation and floods.

Edited by JamesHackerMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one reason why the bible cannot be taken too literally.  There are inconsistencies in it, even contradictions.  That's why we have to look at the forest (the larger truth) and the not the trees (the literal "events" described therein) to get the picture.  Otherwise, we condemn the Bible to the realm of claptrap.  I'm sure you, a good Christian, wouldn't want to do so!

Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing the Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done.  He returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood."  They said, "What is that to us? Look to is yourself."  Flinging the money into the temple, he departed and went off and hanged himself.  The chief priests gathered up the money, but said, "It is not lawful to deposit this in the temple treasury, for it is the price of blood."  After consultation, they used it to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners.  That is why that field even today is called the Field of Blood.  (Matthew 27:3-9)

but in Acts, we have:

He [Judas] bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.  This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language 'Akeldama,' that is, Field of Blood. (Acts 1:18-19)

Same point, that Judas payed for his crime.  You don't betray Jesus Christ.  But if you start getting too literal, it would seem a contradiction that Matthew says he hanged himself, and Acts says his intestines spontaneously exploded.

That's why you cannot take the Bible word for word.  Just a couple of examples.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Now you're getting my point.  I said precisely that! However, you say that, then right below you continue with the hydrological cycle, etc.  The ancient authors had no idea about that!!!!! You cannot match science to the Bible, even if it is to personally "confirm" the former. If you keep comparing Bible to science, one or the other will always come up short.

The best we can do with the creation myths in the Bible is to treat them as ancient Hebrew traditions.  One of those myths is the great flood.  Some say that the Hebrews were influenced by the ancient Mesopotamian myths of creation and floods.

 

:blink:  I think you're confused.

Of course, the ancient authors had no  idea what they were writing about!  That's my point! 

 

How do you explain this?

HOW DID THESE ANCIENT AUTHORS HAPPEN TO WRITE DETAILS THAT WERE LATER REAFFIRMED BY SCIENCE - THOUSANDS OF YEARS AFTER THEY WERE WRITTEN?

 

That supports my argument that the Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation.....

....and it supports my claim that the Creator is the God of the Bible!

 

  For these authors to come up with details that are reaffirmed by science (thousands of years after they were written),  indicate the divine inspiration of the Bible!  Only the Creator would know about those detailed knowledge of the physical world  Even you admit, and agree with me that those authors had no idea what they were talking about!  

How many are there that these authors had gotten right?  Count them!

 

And yes, look at the hydrological cycle as another example! 

READ!

 

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Here's one reason why the bible cannot be taken too literally.  There are inconsistencies in it, even contradictions.  That's why we have to look at the forest (the larger truth) and the not the trees (the literal "events" described therein) to get the picture.  Otherwise, we condemn the Bible to the realm of claptrap.  I'm sure you, a good Christian, wouldn't want to do so!

Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing the Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done.  He returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood."  They said, "What is that to us? Look to is yourself."  Flinging the money into the temple, he departed and went off and hanged himself.  The chief priests gathered up the money, but said, "It is not lawful to deposit this in the temple treasury, for it is the price of blood."  After consultation, they used it to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners.  That is why that field even today is called the Field of Blood.  (Matthew 27:3-9)

but in Acts, we have:

He [Judas] bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.  This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language 'Akeldama,' that is, Field of Blood. (Acts 1:18-19)

Same point, that Judas payed for his crime.  You don't betray Jesus Christ.  But if you start getting too literal, it would seem a contradiction that Matthew says he hanged himself, and Acts says his intestines spontaneously exploded.

That's why you cannot take the Bible word for word.  Just a couple of examples.

Irrelevant!

Stop deflecting.  I gave specific evidences for the argument The Creator has Intimate Knowledge of His creation.  Deal with those.

 

Furthermore, I already answered that there is no contradiction with that Judas narrative.  Both happened to Judas!  He hanged himself, and later on his decomposing body fell headlong and split open.


 

Quote

 

What would cause his “stomach” or midsection to split open? Consider the following. When a person dies, the body begins to decompose. If left to itself (and not acted upon by the attempt to preserve the body, e.g., embalming), bacteria soon begin to break down various tissues. As a result, gases are released within the body, which in turn cause it to swell.

Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 cannot be accepted as legitimately contradicting each other if it is possible for both to be true—and it certainly is scientifically and logistically possible for both incidents to have occurred. Consider a brawl in which two men are fighting to the death. The larger man strikes the undersized man in the throat, crushing his larynx. For nearly 60 seconds, the wounded man stumbles around trying to breathe, but to no avail. He then goes limp, falls to the ground, and strikes his head on the cement, having died from asphyxia. When the police come to the scene and ask witnesses what happened, one person will likely declare, “James struck John and killed him.” Another person may say, “John suffocated,” while another might add, “Falling headfirst, John busted his skull on the ground, causing part of his brain to ooze out onto the concrete.” Are the witnesses’ statements contradictory? No. They are supplementary. Likewise, neither of the statements concerning the death of Judas is contradictory. Simply put, one does not exclude the other.

According to ancient tradition, Judas hanged himself above the Valley of Hinnom on the edge of a cliff. Eventually the rope snapped (or was cut or untied), thus causing his body to fall headfirst into the field below, as Luke described. Matthew does not deny that Judas fell and had his entrails gush out, and Luke does not deny that Judas hanged himself. In short, Matthew records the method in which Judas attempted his death. Luke reports the end result.

 

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1761

 

 

:lol:  And guess what, science supports the "exploding tummy."

 

 

Quote

 

Residents of Tainan learned a lesson in whale biology after the decomposing remains of a 60-ton sperm whale exploded on a busy street, showering nearby cars and shops with blood and organs and stopping traffic for hours.

The 56-foot-long whale had been on a truck headed for a necropsy by researchers, when gases from internal decay caused its entrails to explode in the southern city of Tainan.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4096586/ns/us_news-environment/t/thar-she-blows-dead-whale-explodes/#.WUr39-mQzIU

 

You should read.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Now you're getting my point.  I said precisely that! However, you say that, then right below you continue with the hydrological cycle, etc.  The ancient authors had no idea about that!!!!! You cannot match science to the Bible, even if it is to personally "confirm" the former. If you keep comparing Bible to science, one or the other will always come up short.

The best we can do with the creation myths in the Bible is to treat them as ancient Hebrew traditions.  One of those myths is the great flood.  Some say that the Hebrews were influenced by the ancient Mesopotamian myths of creation and floods.

 

Why won't you answer these question? 

 

You don't agree with science that the universe had a beginning?

You don't agree with science that there are creatures that are asexual?

You don't agree with science that the universe is stretching?

You don't agree with science's claim that in the early times, there were only one ocean and one super continent?

You don't agree with Darwinist scientists that life started in the water?

You don't agree with science that the human body is comprised of elements found in the dirt (earth's crust)?

You don't agree with science on the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
 

 

I won't be entertaining anymore senseless posts from you unless you answer these questions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, betsy said:

What point?  You've never made any point at all, so far.  Furthermore, whatever you think it is you've made.....is an epic fail!

The point of my example, since it apparently must be spelled out for you, is that if your God exists and operates according to your beliefs, He is by any reasonable definition of the term, Evil.

17 hours ago, betsy said:

First of all, you've yet to prove that the premise is false - and my friend, it's an epic fail so far trying to prove that!   Simply saying, "nay, it's not true," isn't a rebuttal!  You've got to give something credible and COHERENT, to make a reasonable rebuttal!  Especially so when you're in Philosophy section!

Your premise is that there is evidence for God.  That is up to you to demonstrate.  The scientific consensus is there is no evidence, I have seen nothing to indicate they're wrong.

17 hours ago, betsy said:

Second, just because everyone is skirting around the argument (and the evidences) that the Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation, it doesn't mean that the argument (and the evidences) does not exist.   You can't just sweep this argument under the rug and pretend it's  not there, and continue on like as if nothing very revealing (and challenging), was given at all! 

If your "intimate knowledge" argument is your interpretation of selective passages from the bible, it demonstrates nothing but an ability to cherry pick and to bend evidence so that it fits your conclusions.  

There are as many or more passages in the bible that directly contradict science ... off the top of my head, birds and fish evolved at substantially different times, where the bible claims they were created together.  Snakes also have never had vocal chords, let alone sophisticated brains.

Regardless, appeals to the bible are not evidence, since there is no more evidence that the your bible was devinely inspired than the works of Muhammad, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, or J.K. Rowling

Edited by TTM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, betsy said:

In that analogy, you would be the criminal, and God would be the Law and the Judge! 

You want a victim? That will be you!  You'd be what is called.........

..........  "the victim of your own stupidity."

So by your analogy, God is having the victim of the crime tortured for eternity?

Or that God has created a crime for which there is no victim, and given it the worst possible penalty?

Edited by TTM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Now you're getting my point.  I said precisely that! However, you say that, then right below you continue with the hydrological cycle, etc.  The ancient authors had no idea about that!!!!! You cannot match science to the Bible, even if it is to personally "confirm" the former. If you keep comparing Bible to science, one or the other will always come up short.

The best we can do with the creation myths in the Bible is to treat them as ancient Hebrew traditions.  One of those myths is the great flood.  Some say that the Hebrews were influenced by the ancient Mesopotamian myths of creation and floods.

I have to interject a comment.   The Bible records supernatural events, which did in fact occur.  If you take the supernatural out of the Bible, you lose the whole meaning because it is a supernatural book about supernatural events.  You accept it by faith.  That's what pleases God.  The account of Genesis did occur exactly as it says.  Noah's flood occurred exactly as it said.  These are not myths and are meant to be taken literally even if we can't explain them in scientific terms.  God is able to perform every supernatural event in the Bible.   Those that come to God must believe by faith.  see Hebrews ch11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

People who set themselves in opposition to God and His word are definitely on the wrong path and need to reconsider while there is still time.  The way to do that is through prayerful study of the Bible. 

For analogy, what would you consider a tin-pot dictator who required constant bowing and scraping, and despite you living a moral, peaceful, and law abiding existence, would have you tortured for the rest of your life for simply refusing to acknowledge him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TTM said:

For analogy, what would you consider a tin-pot dictator who required constant bowing and scraping, and despite you living a moral, peaceful, and law abiding existence, would have you tortured for the rest of your life for simply refusing to acknowledge him?

You err in equating God with a tin-pot dictator.  There is no similarity or analogy.  God is our Creator, who keeps us alive by his power.  All things were created by him and for him.  As the Bible says, in him we live and have our being.  The Bible teaches all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  There is no peace possible between God and man without becoming a son or child of God by faith in Jesus Christ.  You might think one who is living a moral, peaceful, and law abiding existence should be able to just carry on and be accepted by God.  That's not what the Bible teaches us.  I would suggest reading the first few chapters of Paul's epistle to the Romans and the gospel of St. John.  The Bible says faith comes through the Bible and without faith it is impossible to please God.  see Hebrews ch11.  Until one is born again by faith in Jesus, he is at enmity with God.  There is a wall or barrier between that person and God no matter how moral, peaceful, and law-abiding he might be.  The bible says nobody is accepted on his own merit or goodness, because our best righteousness falls far short and cannot atone for our sin.  When one believes in Jesus (that he died for one's sins personally and rose from the dead), then he becomes that person's mediator (or savior) between God and man.  That is the only way the separation between a person and God can be eliminated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, blackbird said:

God is our Creator, who keeps us alive by his power.  All things were created by him and for him. 

Even if He did create us (He did not, and does not exist), that does not relieve Him of the responsibility of acting morally toward his creations, any more than I can morally torture my pets.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The Bible teaches all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  

The bible also teaches us snakes can talk.  No sin is worthy of eternal torture.  Or even finite torture.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

There is no peace possible between God and man without becoming a son or child of God by faith in Jesus Christ.  You might think one who is living a moral, peaceful, and law abiding existence should be able to just carry on and be accepted by God.  That's not what the Bible teaches us ... Until one is born again by faith in Jesus, he is at enmity with God.  There is a wall or barrier between that person and God no matter how moral, peaceful, and law-abiding he might be.

That's convenient logic for keeping churches full and priests employed.  But it does not change the morality of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TTM said:

Even if He did create us (He did not, and does not exist), that does not relieve Him of the responsibility of acting morally toward his creations, any more than I can morally torture my pets.

The bible also teaches us snakes can talk.  No sin is worthy of eternal torture.  Or even finite torture.

 

Actually, I think Benny the Pope changed that a few years back.  Hell is not fire and brimstone, and eternal torture, he said.  It's merely being in a state of Godlessness.

So, no change really, dead or alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Actually, I think Benny the Pope changed that a few years back.  Hell is not fire and brimstone, and eternal torture, he said.  It's merely being in a state of Godlessness.

So, no change really, dead or alive.

Well that's a relief!  

On The other hand, I don't think these two are Catholic, so I'm probably still going to burn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I always thought Roman Catholics were at the top of the Christian pyramid.  All the other Christians look up to them. 

Them's fightin words.  You trying to start a holy war?

(I mean in general ... not with me of course)

Edited by TTM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TTM said:

Them's fightin words.  You trying to start a holy war?

(I mean in general ... not with me of course)

An observation as innocent as the day is long, I swear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'm trying to understand your argument, Betsy.  You are trying to support that the Bible is entirely factual because what is in it correlates with certain scientific discoveries? Or am I smoking too much incense and hitting the holy water a bit hard? Can you be a little more clear? Seriously you're all over the road here.  I realize I have the tendency to wander off, but I'm having trouble getting your underlying point here.

Edited by JamesHackerMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TTM said:

Even if He did create us (He did not, and does not exist), that does not relieve Him of the responsibility of acting morally toward his creations, any more than I can morally torture my pets.

The bible also teaches us snakes can talk.  No sin is worthy of eternal torture.  Or even finite torture.

That's convenient logic for keeping churches full and priests employed.  But it does not change the morality of the situation.

Agreed.  Not everyone in the world is Christian.  Last I read there were about 2 billion Christians, leaving almost 5 billion who aren't.  Why would God create that many people "in enmity" with him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TTM said:

So by your analogy, God is having the victim of the crime tortured for eternity?

Or that God has created a crime for which there is no victim, and given it the worst possible penalty?

Don't let Betsy's bullshit throw you off, she very clearly indicated that God is the real victim here.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26852-why-trust-the-bible/?do=findComment&comment=1252223

Quote

 

If God gave His creation a  rational mind, and He gave reasonable evidence for His creation to believe that He is indeed the Creator - and instead of obedience, His creation had used his free will to be arrogant and defiant (having been warned fully well what's in store for such a creation in the last judgement for such behaviour towards God - God even showed examples of His wrath towards the Jews - and that's nothing compared to what awaits the arrogant unrepentant).........what do you think?

Look at it this way:

We all know we have a penalty against murder - and yet someone still decides to commit murder - what do you think happens?  We say, " it's okay.........we're only kidding?" :lol:

Is that "just" to you?  What about the victim?  Where is justice for him? :rolleyes:

 

 

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2017 at 9:39 AM, blackbird said:

Parts of the Old Testament are historical in nature and give the history of Israel and God's dealing with them.  Yes, he did treat them differently than New Testament christians because Israel was God's chosen people.  So when you read the O.T. you have to read it in that context.  What happened then, does not necessarily mean that is how things should be today.  That would be taking it entirely out of context.  Things that happened between Israel and God were unique for that particular time and circumstances and only apply to them.  As for example, the various ceremonial laws given to Israel.  There are certain eternal principles of morality that are applicable for all time, as for example the sanctity of life and the ownership of private property.

God choosing one group of people over another does not sound fair or right to me. That would be like me buying two dogs, and treating one better than the other. The whole bible and what is written in it is quite confusing to me. I have enough trouble at times in trying to read and understand plain old English. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...