Arella Mae wrote:There are just some things that we won't get answers to. It doesn't matter why God did create us, or how, etc. It only matters that we are here and we have to deal with that.
You cannot answer an argument against God with an argument which includes the assumption that God exists.
hingehead wrote:I'm gobsmacked about the idea expressed above that atheists shouldn't comment on religion. It's my experience that atheists take that position because they have thought about religion a lot, not because they have no knowledge.
The religious (at least in the judeo/christian/muslim sense) place great stock in 'faith' and 'not questioning' and 'divine unknowable purposes'.
On any topic which kind of person's input would you prefer?
My thoughts exactly. I was raised a theist, and no thought was put into my faith. I only became an atheist after two years of speculation and debate. To be fair though, I am sure there are some opposite cases.
neologist wrote:In what way do you think Jesus' teachings over rode the OT?
Well I didn't make the point but, as just one example, read Revelations. Only Jews (on mountain tops and only 50,000 of them) go to heaven when the world goes foom. Christ opened it up to all believers in god.
neologists, sorry to be rude, but how can you call yourself a Christian when you do not know this basic fact? I thought this was obvious. There are, I am sure, hundreds of quotes to support this. I you require, I shall provide them, but I would hope you don't.
Aperson is right. I cannot see how people can quote the bible in order to prove a point than blatantly provide an incorrect assumption about it.
RockOnManBoy wrote:He built in imperfect so we can have free-will. God did not want a bunch of robots, so he did not make us perfect. He wanted us to WANT to love and worship Him.
What happens when you don't?
You go to hell where a bunch of horny red men poke you with tridents.
In what way does omnipotence negate desire?
Human suffering is a consequence of Edenic rebellion. God has promised to do away with it. If you don't like his timetable, perhaps you could suggest something better.
hingehead wrote:neologist wrote:In what way do you think Jesus' teachings over rode the OT?
Well I didn't make the point but, as just one example, read Revelations. Only Jews (on mountain tops and only 50,000 of them) go to heaven when the world goes foom. Christ opened it up to all believers in god.
Cite the quote. You will be amazed when you look it up.
aperson wrote:neologists, sorry to be rude, but how can you call yourself a Christian when you do not know this basic fact? I thought this was obvious. There are, I am sure, hundreds of quotes to support this. I you require, I shall provide them, but I would hope you don't.
It is true that Jesus fulfilled the law and instituted a new covenant; but that in no way changed God's purpose to have the 'meek inherit the earth.
(Compare Psalms 37:11 with Matthew 5:5)
neologist wrote:hingehead wrote:neologist wrote:In what way do you think Jesus' teachings over rode the OT?
Well I didn't make the point but, as just one example, read Revelations. Only Jews (on mountain tops and only 50,000 of them) go to heaven when the world goes foom. Christ opened it up to all believers in god.
Cite the quote. You will be amazed when you look it up
I read the bible in my teens and I distinctly remember mentally noting that bit - I just tried to look it up - and I see now that Revelations is in the New Testament so it's a moot point anyway.
You don't have to be a google guru to find examples of contradictions - or equally rabid deniers of contradiction.
Quote:Was the law of the Old Testament destroyed by Christ's crucification? Luke16:16, Ephesians 2:15 & Romans 7:6 says that the old law is no longer binding. Yet Matthew 5:17-19 and MANY other verses say that the old law is forever binding.
Source
There are many seeming contradictions in the bible, but none that defy satisfactory explanation.
Just one point touched on earlier:
The Mosaic Law was extremely demanding to the point where it was impossible for imperfect humans to follow. But that was the point; when Christ fulfilled the law, he redeemed mankind from its condemnation. That is why Jesus said he "came, not to destroy, but to fulfill . . ." (Matthew 5:17)
In line with this, Paul wrote "the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ . . ." (Galatians 3:24)
Frank Apisa would have just loved to leap into this argument.
I miss the old goat.
neologist wrote:In what way does omnipotence negate desire?
Human suffering is a consequence of Edenic rebellion. God has promised to do away with it. If you don't like his timetable, perhaps you could suggest something better.
Does God want human suffering? It seems to me he does.
neologist wrote:There are many seeming contradictions in the bible, but none that defy satisfactory explanation.
You cannot serious propose that.
I'm curious what God thinks about jews and muslims. The Muslims think Christ was a prophet. The jews think he was nice jewish boy who went off the rails.
How can three groups that accept the Old testament shed so much blood?
In the words of Depeche Mode
'I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours
But I think that God's got a sick sense of humour'
Or Wil Anderson's take, that from an outsiders point of view it really does seem to be a case of 'My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend'
aperson wrote:neologist wrote:There are many seeming contradictions in the bible, but none that defy satisfactory explanation.
You cannot serious propose that.
Seriously . . .
This topic has been worked over a few times before; but give it your best shot.
Neologist, you have done what so many christians do. You quote tiny bits out of context from the bible and pretend that these little scraps of prose hold some collosal validity in virtually any arguement no matter how they are used. You have done it several times for example answering my question regarding god's purpose for humans with instructions given to Adam and Eve.
Besides I do not accept the bible as a vaild source, it was written primarily by people who had never met Jesus years after his death and has since been mis-translated and exaggerated for almost 2000 years.
neologist wrote:aperson wrote:neologist wrote:In what way does omnipotence negate desire?
Human suffering is a consequence of Edenic rebellion. God has promised to do away with it. If you don't like his timetable, perhaps you could suggest something better.
Does God want human suffering? It seems to me he does.
Seems?
Please do not attempt to avoid my question. I want an answer. Does God want human suffering?
neologist wrote:aperson wrote:neologist wrote:There are many seeming contradictions in the bible, but none that defy satisfactory explanation.
You cannot serious propose that.
Seriously . . .
This topic has been worked over a few times before; but give it your best shot.
Where to start... perhaps we should start a new thread?
