why would god want us to worship him?

mesquite wrote:

neologist wrote:
If major religions don't agree with the bible, it is not the fault of the bible.

Lest you forget neo, what we know as the "Bible" was assembled by those that created what was to become "the major religion" of the time.

No sooner did God inspire the bible texts to be written, then power hungry clergy sought to obfuscate its meaning in order to gain power over the credulous.

0 Replies

There is considerable evidence that they not only obfuscated it's meaning, but also it's content.

0 Replies

As far as the content goes, the believer has to operate on faith that God would use his power to preserve the integrity of his word.

I understand this may be disputed, but it is the responsibility of the one who would have faith to investigate the claims of scriptural tampering to his satisfaction. I've checked out many and think I've done a good job of it. You are, however, welcome to pose one for argument.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

As far as the content goes, the believer has to operate on faith that God would use his power to preserve the integrity of his word.

But of course, the Bible is perfect because it says so. Your arguments are generally better than that.

neologist wrote:

I understand this may be disputed, but it is the responsibility of the one who would have faith to investigate the claims of scriptural tampering to his satisfaction. I've checked out many and think I've done a good job of it. You are, however, welcome to pose one for argument.

The additions to Mark are one.

0 Replies

I assume you mean her when referring to my God. Really does any body here believe God has gender in addition to needing worship?

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

neologist wrote:
As far as the content goes, the believer has to operate on faith that God would use his power to preserve the integrity of his word.

But of course, the Bible is perfect because it says so. Your arguments are generally better than that.

neologist wrote:
I understand this may be disputed, but it is the responsibility of the one who would have faith to investigate the claims of scriptural tampering to his satisfaction. I've checked out many and think I've done a good job of it. You are, however, welcome to pose one for argument.
The additions to Mark are one.

What additions to Mark? You'll have to be specific as the canon was well established by the end of the 2nd century.

McMavis wrote:

I assume you mean her when referring to my God. Really does any body here believe God has gender in addition to needing worship?

What do you mean by gender? I realize some believe God has a physical body. Is that what you are referring to?

0 Replies

No I do not believe God has a body or gender. I just feel that humans make so many assumptions about all their belief systems gender and physical nature just being two of many suppositions.

0 Replies

Male female distinctions don't make sense in the spiritual realm. But, if you take the bible at face value, God described himself in a way that would be understood by people of the time. In fact the name Jehovah or Yahweh means 'he who causes to become. He refers to himself as the husband of the nation of Israel. The Israelites understood what that meant.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

If, for the moment, you accept the Genesis story as true, then Adam and Eve would have had perfect immune systems.

supposing Yahweh had the foresight to fashion diseases just in case they disobeyed and ate of the Tree of Knowledge, not to mention animal hosts with imperfect immune systems to act as reservoirs, and mosquitoes and other carriers, how do you account for infectious diseases that only afflict humans, such as smallpox & poliomyelitis?

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

neologist wrote:
If, for the moment, you accept the Genesis story as true, then Adam and Eve would have had perfect immune systems.

supposing Yahweh had the foresight to fashion diseases just in case they disobeyed and ate of the Tree of Knowledge, . . .

If Adam and Eve had been perfect and lost their perfection, they would then be subject to disease.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

If Adam and Eve had been perfect and lost their perfection, they would then be subject to disease.

entirely agree with you. i was merely wondering if those diseases were created before or after their disobedience.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

neologist wrote:
If Adam and Eve had been perfect and lost their perfection, they would then be subject to disease.

entirely agree with you. i was merely wondering if those diseases were created before or after their disobedience.

No way to know. Perhaps they evolved after. Smile

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

yitwail wrote:

entirely agree with you. i was merely wondering if those diseases were created before or after their disobedience.
No way to know. Perhaps they evolved after.

surely, they couldn't have evolved if the earth was created in 4004 BCE or thereabouts. on the other hand, don't recall any mention of Noah & his family being afflicted, so maybe Yahweh creates them whenever the need arises.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

neologist wrote:
yitwail wrote:

entirely agree with you. i was merely wondering if those diseases were created before or after their disobedience.
No way to know. Perhaps they evolved after.

surely, they couldn't have evolved if the earth was created in 4004 BCE or thereabouts. on the other hand, don't recall any mention of Noah & his family being afflicted, so maybe Yahweh creates them whenever the need arises.

I didn't say the earth was only 6000 +/- years old and neither does the bible.

BTW, Noah and his family have all died long ago and I don't know the cause(s) of death.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

What additions to Mark? You'll have to be specific as the canon was well established by the end of the 2nd century.

Mark 16:9-20

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I didn't say the earth was only 6000 +/- years old and neither does the bible.

BTW, Noah and his family have all died long ago and I don't know the cause(s) of death.

ah, i had mistaken you for a Biblical literalist. still, if you believe that Noah was a historical figure & the Deluge actually destroyed all terrestrial and aerial life that wasn't on the ark, then either Noah & his family collectively were carriers of all diseases that only humans can contract, such as smallpox and polio, or many such diseases originated or evolved after the flood subsided. by the way, how long ago did Noah die by your reckoning?

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

neologist wrote:
What additions to Mark? You'll have to be specific as the canon was well established by the end of the 2nd century.

Mark 16:9-20

My translation handles the questioned verses thus:

"Some late manuscripts and versions contain a short conclusion after Mark 16:8, as follows:

But all the things that had been commanded they related briefly to those around Peter. Further, after these things, Jesus himself sent out through them from the east to the west the holy and incorruptible proclamation of everlasting salvation.

LONG CONCLUSION

Certain ancient manuscripts (ACD) and versions (VgSyc,p) add the following long conclusion, but which 1488;BSysArm omit. . . "(...here is the questioned text you referred to.) So we acknowledge its existence while not quoting it for support.

The same applies to the addition to the 7th and 8th chapters of John.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

neologist wrote:
I didn't say the earth was only 6000 +/- years old and neither does the bible.

BTW, Noah and his family have all died long ago and I don't know the cause(s) of death.

ah, i had mistaken you for a Biblical literalist. still, if you believe that Noah was a historical figure & the Deluge actually destroyed all terrestrial and aerial life that wasn't on the ark, then either Noah & his family collectively were carriers of all diseases that only humans can contract, such as smallpox and polio, or many such diseases originated or evolved after the flood subsided. by the way, how long ago did Noah die by your reckoning?

Why do you say they must have been carriers? I'm thinking of eboli, where the infectious agent is thought to have reached humans only recently. Or, how about diseases thought to be environmental in origin, such as mesiothelioma?

According to the bible, Noah lived for 350 years after the flood and died about 4000 years ago.

Waht do you mean by the term biblical literalist?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Why do you say they must have been carriers? I'm thinking of eboli, where the infectious agent is thought to have reached humans only recently. Or, how about diseases thought to be environmental in origin, such as mesiothelioma?

According to the bible, Noah lived for 350 years after the flood and died about 4000 years ago.

Waht do you mean by the term biblical literalist?

i was thinking of smallpox, which only exists in labs now, and polio, which may soon be eradicated as well. i certainly wasn't referring to diseases of recent origin through mutations.

by biblical literalist, i denote anyone who accepts the Bible as literally true. i know that fundamentalist is normally used with that meaning, but fundamentalist has connotations that may be unacceptable to some.

0 Replies

I believe the bible is the inerrant word of God.

But I don't describe myself as either fundamentalist, literalist, creationist or intelligent design-ist.

When Jesus talks about camels walking through the eye of the needle, he is obviously using hyperbole.

I look at it this way: How might the most intelligent person in the universe communicate with us dummies?

Eh?

Probably not with a doctoral thesis in thermodynamics, I would guess.

0 Replies

why would god want us to worship him?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know