Hmmm... good question, Momma. Stupid? obsessed? Anyone's guess.
Hmmmm. Is there a prize for the best guess?
Maybe Frank thinks he is God. He advocates killing babi...errr fetuses as he claims God did.
"Maybe Frank thinks he is God."
These religionists keep using strawman arguments, because they can't provide a reasonable response.
Well, there you are C.I. Are you going to respond to the definitions of fear that I supplied or not? Avoiding it just makes it look like you are afraid to answer (IMO).
cicerone imposter wrote:"Maybe Frank thinks he is God."
These religionists keep using strawman arguments, because they can't provide a reasonable response.
Response to what, exactly?
Frank wrote:
So far you two have come up with one woman getting pregnant...as your example of the god of the Bible being all those good things you say it is.
c.i.:
You still haven't answered Frank's question about finding verses in the bible about the "good things you say it is." When balanced against all the bad things your god promises, it is laughable.
God is quite descriptive and clear when he states what the consequences of not devoting your life to him. Why is he so unclear about his good deeds and love for man?
That he gave his only begotten son only satisifies your god. He sacrificed his own son for what? To satisify himself. If he's god, he doesn't need to sacrifice anything. Or this concept too difficult to understand?
Intrepid wrote:Pauligirl wrote:Intrepid wrote:Pauligirl wrote:Intrepid wrote:Pauligirl wrote:Intrepid wrote:
The concept of sin does not come from the bible. It comes from man. Christianity did not make the problem. It tried to solve it. Sorry, but your knife/bandage analogy doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Define sin.
P
Sin is estrangement from God. Now before you go all fluttery and claim that you were right about the bible.... Adam and Eve commited the first sin against God. Therefore, man created the sin. The bible only records the event for us. The bible did not create it.
The concept of sin most certainly does come from the bible. Without God and the bible, there would be no sin --under your definition.
P
If there was no bible, the sin would still be there. A book does not make sin. God would still be God if there was no bible.
You're missing the point. It's a Christian concept. Without God and the bible, there would be no sin --under your definition.
P
Without Betty Crocker and cookbooks, there would still be meals
Without Abbot and Costello, there would still be humour
You can twist it till it screams, but without God and the bible, there would be no sin --under your definition.
P
Momma Angel = 2
C.I. = 0
I admit my mistakes, C.I. You ignore yours?
Pauligirl, You know as well as I that Interpid and his ilk like to project their ideas about the bible into other realms that has no relevance or logic. He wants to talk about Betty Crocker and Abbot and Costello rather than your point about the christian concept of sin. They're always trying to equate apples to lettuce, and they can't see the foolishness of their comparisons.
cicerone imposter wrote:Pauligirl, You know as well as I that Interpid and his ilk like to project their ideas about the bible into other realms that has no relevance or logic. He wants to talk about Betty Crocker and Abbot and Costello rather than your point about the christian concept of sin. They're always trying to equate apples to lettuce, and they can't see the foolishness of their comparisons.
C.I.,
Perhaps I should post the word hypocrite also? Look, you are the one that made the statement that we Christians make up our own definitions and I showed you that we did not.
Why can't you admit it? It's ok, you don't have to. I will take your silence as a forfeit.
Being a Christian does not mean being a dormat, you know. You expect us to stick to certain standards but you won't even stick to those standards yourself.
Frank Apisa wrote:Pauligirl wrote:mesquite wrote:Pardon me for jumping in, but I have a question.
Implicator wrote:Well don't just stop there, Frank
there is a whole lot more to Eden then you are sharing. This god then sends his son as payment for the sin that Adam committed in the garden, and that became part of the nature of all of us (according to this story). The *thrust* of Eden (since you have changed the rules, I will now adopt the new ones) was to be the first step in a demonstration of his love whereby he sends this son to pay for the sins these people committed. The fact that Jesus dies a terrible death at the hands of the murderous elite of the day is (according to the new rules) irrelevant, because the *thrust* of this god's sending his son was an action of love.
Did God really say that? Sure sounds like a strange way to show love, torturing your son and all in a sacrifice to yourself. You are just trying to mess with us. right?
The very concept of sin comes from the bible. Christianity offers to solve a problem of its own making! Would you be thankful to a person who cut you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage?
Dan Barker
Losing Faith in Faith
P
PauliGirl
Can you get over this guy suggesting that the god is good, kind, and humanity loving...
...and attempts to show that by saying the god punishes everyone in the world for one man's innocent error...
...and then is willing to relent if humanity will first torture and kill its son????
How do they do that to these people?
The brainwashers in "The Manchurian Candidate" couldn't do that good a job!
I find religion in equal turns to be baffling, amusing and sometimes, downright ridiculous. Ever read the "Miracle of the Quails"?
I don't see how anyone who has actually read the bible can believe it. The god portrayed therein is a nasty little bugger.
P
Big nasty bugger. Look how many have been brainwashed. LOL
Pauligirl,
Have you read the New Testament? Just read the Beatitudes for a start. I hardly think that you can consider God nasty in those verses.
Look, it is perfectly okay for you or anyone else to believe God is what you believe or think He is. What is not okay, is to make judgments on anyone else about them or their beliefs.
Why is it that I cannot get you and others to understand that? Christians (believers) are continually lumped into that same stereotypical group.
Yet, if this happens considering anything else, non-believers seem to be some of the first to defend against it. Why is that?
Momma Angel wrote:Pauligirl,
Have you read the New Testament? Just read the Beatitudes for a start. I hardly think that you can consider God nasty in those verses.
Look, it is perfectly okay for you or anyone else to believe God is what you believe or think He is. What is not okay, is to make judgments on anyone else about them or their beliefs.
Why is it that I cannot get you and others to understand that? Christians (believers) are continually lumped into that same stereotypical group.
Yet, if this happens considering anything else, non-believers seem to be some of the first to defend against it. Why is that?
Yes, I've read the whole thing, but it's been a while ago. Overall, the god portrayed is a nasty little bugger. Pulling something out of the Beatitudes is not going to change the OT.
It's hard not to make judgments on anyone else about them or their beliefs, after all this is a bbs on Spirituality & Religion and that's what's discussed. Basically, it's the only thing we know about each other. You can't make the rules for how I perceive things, just like I can't make the rules about how you perceive things.
As I said before, I find religion in equal turns to be baffling, amusing and sometimes, downright ridiculous. That certainly colors my thinking on people that believe it.
P
Pauligirl wrote:Momma Angel wrote:Pauligirl,
Have you read the New Testament? Just read the Beatitudes for a start. I hardly think that you can consider God nasty in those verses.
Look, it is perfectly okay for you or anyone else to believe God is what you believe or think He is. What is not okay, is to make judgments on anyone else about them or their beliefs.
Why is it that I cannot get you and others to understand that? Christians (believers) are continually lumped into that same stereotypical group.
Yet, if this happens considering anything else, non-believers seem to be some of the first to defend against it. Why is that?
Yes, I've read the whole thing, but it's been a while ago. Overall, the god portrayed is a nasty little bugger. Pulling something out of the Beatitudes is not going to change the OT.
It's hard not to make judgments on anyone else about them or their beliefs, after all this is a bbs on Spirituality & Religion and that's what's discussed. Basically, it's the only thing we know about each other. You can't make the rules for how I perceive things, just like I can't make the rules about how you perceive things.
As I said before, I find religion in equal turns to be baffling, amusing and sometimes, downright ridiculous. That certainly colors my thinking on people that believe it.
P
Pauligirl,
Understood and thank you for being so honest. It's not that I am particularly trying to change your perception on God. It's more about I am trying to understand why it appears that the story of the New Testament and what it means is not considered when one considers the character of God.
I could very well see someone's point about God being rather nasty if there were only the Old Testament. I guess my question is to you and whoever else might want to answer it is why? Why stop there? Why does it seem (and I say seem because I don't really know the correct word here and don't want to put words in yours or anyone elses' mouth) you disregard the character of God in the New Testament? I really am trying to understand this. It seems to be a very big bone of contention when discussing the Bible. Perhaps if I understood a bit better why this is, then I could understand you and others better?
See, for me, just reading the OT and not taking into account the New Testament is like only reading the first half of a book. The opinions I make from that can't be complete opinions because I didn't avail myself to all the information.
Momma Angel wrote:Pauligirl wrote:Momma Angel wrote:Pauligirl,
Have you read the New Testament? Just read the Beatitudes for a start. I hardly think that you can consider God nasty in those verses.
Look, it is perfectly okay for you or anyone else to believe God is what you believe or think He is. What is not okay, is to make judgments on anyone else about them or their beliefs.
Why is it that I cannot get you and others to understand that? Christians (believers) are continually lumped into that same stereotypical group.
Yet, if this happens considering anything else, non-believers seem to be some of the first to defend against it. Why is that?
Yes, I've read the whole thing, but it's been a while ago. Overall, the god portrayed is a nasty little bugger. Pulling something out of the Beatitudes is not going to change the OT.
It's hard not to make judgments on anyone else about them or their beliefs, after all this is a bbs on Spirituality & Religion and that's what's discussed. Basically, it's the only thing we know about each other. You can't make the rules for how I perceive things, just like I can't make the rules about how you perceive things.
As I said before, I find religion in equal turns to be baffling, amusing and sometimes, downright ridiculous. That certainly colors my thinking on people that believe it.
P
Pauligirl,
Understood and thank you for being so honest. It's not that I am particularly trying to change your perception on God. It's more about I am trying to understand why it appears that the story of the New Testament and what it means is not considered when one considers the character of God.
I could very well see someone's point about God being rather nasty if there were only the Old Testament. I guess my question is to you and whoever else might want to answer it is why? Why stop there? Why does it seem (and I say seem because I don't really know the correct word here and don't want to put words in yours or anyone elses' mouth) you disregard the character of God in the New Testament? I really am trying to understand this. It seems to be a very big bone of contention when discussing the Bible. Perhaps if I understood a bit better why this is, then I could understand you and others better?
See, for me, just reading the OT and not taking into account the New Testament is like only reading the first half of a book. The opinions I make from that can't be complete opinions because I didn't avail myself to all the information.
Keep in mind, MA...that the god of the Old Testament...IS THE GOD JESUS WORSHIPPED.
When we talk about that god...we ARE talking about the New Testament as well.
Frank,
In your case, that's a bit hard for me to believe. You have referenced very few verses of the New Testament. The ones that you have referenced are the ones you have interpreted to back up the ones of the Old Testament you have such a problem with.
Did some research. Maybe this will explain your verse about not changing the law.
Resemblances between the New Testament and the Qumran writings should not surprise us. For one thing, it is only to be expected that there will be certain likenesses between two such organized religious bodies as the community of Qumran and the Church of the New Law, both of them "seeking" the true God and striving to be perfect, each in its own way.
Both owed much to the Old Testament, and drew upon it as a common source. Need we repeat that the revelation of the New Testament was not, so to speak, built up on a vacuum? The Almighty did not make use of a new language, a language from heaven, to convey the mysteries of the Christian faith. Christ said truly, "I am not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil" (Matt. 5:17) -- the Old Testament basis was there, its language was used, though with a fullness of new meaning; its revelation was supplemented with new and deeper mysteries, its moral law perfected...
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=419168
It's moral code perfected.
Yes, had anyone been listening. It's not easy becoming the conscious moral force of the Western World, there are stumbling blocks. Things like slavery (okie-dokie in the OT), non-kosher food (verboten in the OT, stamp of approval from Paul's vision), hating the Jews for a) killing Christ, b) not throwing themselves on bended knee before Him or c) found their dis-belief irritiatingly smug. (The jury is still out on this issue amongst fundamentalist Christians like the Southern Baptists and the members of the Church of Christ, but Pope Paul VI decreed just six years ago, after a millennium of distrust and hatred, that Catholics cannot hold the Jew in contempt. Jesus, for his part, said we should love each other, not withholding anyone from this, Christians have in large part failed to heed this simple message choosing to judge and wailing when they themselves are judged.)
Zooming forward past the Inquisition, the Hundred Years War and the evisceration of the Western Hemisphere's Indian culture (to say nothing about the near elimiation of the populace), we arrive in the present where the perfected Christian moral code tells us that homosexuals are less than human, a position identical to that once held in regard to both blacks and Jews, that birth control violates the human chain of life even if to proceed with some births would cause the death of the mother, that marriage, once pledged, is inviolate even in the presence of criminal abuse, that scientific examination of nearly anything pertaining to the human genome is unlawful and immoral, (see former positions on blood transfusions, pain medication, organ transplants, et al) and finally, but not fully, the scientific pursuit of knowledge into very complex things may not result in any realization of Nature's truth but instead must show the Hand of God in Creation.
Things haven't all been bad. Real Christians led the battle for Civil Rights in the USA, just one hundred years too late and Pope Pius XII wrote a great encyclical on respecting the working man. I'm sure all the corporate donors to the RNC have read it and follow it's lead.
The error of Christianity lies in the fear of God. Christians fear God and with good reason. God appears not to have the slightest sense of compassion, killing the just with the same alacrity as the unjust. Jesus can't stop Him.
So what's the solution? Fire Him. That's what I did. After a career of belief and investigation into God and His Nature, I found Him to be incapable of doing his job as a Loving God. Imagine allowing something like acute onset pediatric lymphoma to exist, no loving God would do that.
I don't need a non-loving God and I am not afraid of one either. So he's fired. and guess what?
I am free to be responsible for my own actions. Nothing that happens to me is God's will, it's mine. I don't fear God because he has no power in my life, I do. What happens is my success or my failure. (Don't you just cringe when some athlete, after training for years, gives the glory to some unknown imaginary Creature. Hey, you did it, dummy.) So, in sum, my moral code had been perfected. The judgements I make, out of love of Nature and for Humanity, stand on their own, free of mystery and blind faith.
Joe(got no skyhook holding me up)Nation
Joe Nation,
I understand what you are saying here and I have no problem with what you believe. This is your decision as it is every individual's. I only ask one thing, please when you say that Christians fear God, refer to our meaning of fear in relationship to God. We are not afraid of God.
This is taken from the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:
Main Entry: 1fear
Pronunciation: 'fir
Function: verb
transitive senses
1 archaic : FRIGHTEN
2 archaic : to feel fear in (oneself)
3 : to have a reverential awe of <fear God>
4 : to be afraid of : expect with alarm
intransitive senses : to be afraid or apprehensive
- fear·er noun
cicerone imposter wrote:Frank wrote:
So far you two have come up with one woman getting pregnant...as your example of the god of the Bible being all those good things you say it is.
c.i.:
You still haven't answered Frank's question about finding verses in the bible about the "good things you say it is." When balanced against all the bad things your god promises, it is laughable.
God is quite descriptive and clear when he states what the consequences of not devoting your life to him. Why is he so unclear about his good deeds and love for man?
That he gave his only begotten son only satisifies your god. He sacrificed his own son for what? To satisify himself. If he's god, he doesn't need to sacrifice anything. Or this concept too difficult to understand?
Frank's questions was answered as asked. You, my friend, do not know what you are talking about. Your last paragraph is so laughable that I cannot believe it came from an adult. Your closed mind does you no service.
