|
Post by gadreel on Jan 4, 2018 17:45:23 GMT
That is the current view, a number of rules in the bible are essentially ways of separating the chosen people from the pagans. Just to be clear, my firm belief is that these rules are not rules from God™, God™ cant give rules it's not logically possible, these are rules from men, some of the rules (not these ones in particular) are good common sense, some are to separate the chosen from the herd, some are to control men. The first part is right although the mixed fibers was also designed to separate the priestly class from the remaining tribes. The last part about God not being able to make rules is a bit on the silly side. Can you explain why it is silly? I know that you are going to say it is because God™ wrote the bible, but that is flagrantly not true, God™ has no access to a writing desk in this universes, nor pens and paper nor anything else, anyone that says they are writing what God™ told them to write is as believable on face evidence as anyone else so if you accept that the bible is true because the MEN who wrote it say they wrote what God™ told them, you also have to accept the Quaran and the book of mormon.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 4, 2018 17:50:15 GMT
The first part is right although the mixed fibers was also designed to separate the priestly class from the remaining tribes. The last part about God not being able to make rules is a bit on the silly side. Can you explain why it is silly? I know that you are going to say it is because God™ wrote the bible, but that is flagrantly not true, God™ has no access to a writing desk in this universes, nor pens and paper nor anything else, anyone that says they are writing what God™ told them to write is as believable on face evidence as anyone else so if you accept that the bible is true because the MEN who wrote it say they wrote what God™ told them, you also have to accept the Quaran and the book of mormon. I hate people answering for me. Would you just like to have a conversation between you and me without me being involved at all? In any event, I wasn't going to say that because I have no reason to discuss my personal beliefs regarding the Bible. It is silly because it's silly to think that god couldn't make rules unless one doesn't believe God exists. To be clear, I don;t care if you're an atheist or whatever, just that to state it in some kind of factual way is goofy in the context of discussing a book involving God whether fictional or not. Treat the Bible as absolute fiction, which is what I'm doing btw since it just makes things easier here, and your statement remains utterly pointless to the conversation. Of course he can make rules and especially if they are contrary to what men themselves want to do.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 4, 2018 17:51:26 GMT
Can you explain why it is silly? I know that you are going to say it is because God™ wrote the bible, but that is flagrantly not true, God™ has no access to a writing desk in this universes, nor pens and paper nor anything else, anyone that says they are writing what God™ told them to write is as believable on face evidence as anyone else so if you accept that the bible is true because the MEN who wrote it say they wrote what God™ told them, you also have to accept the Quaran and the book of mormon. I hate people answering for me. Would you just like to have a conversation between you and me without me being involved at all? In any event, I wasn't going to say that because I have no reason to discuss my personal beliefs regarding the Bible. It is silly because it's silly to think that god couldn't make rules unless one doesn't believe God exists. To be clear, I don;t care if you're an atheist or whatever, just that to state it in some kind of factual way is goofy in the context of discussing a book involving God whether fictional or not. Treat the Bible as absolute fiction, which is what I'm doing btw since it just makes things easier here, and your statement remains utterly pointless to the conversation. Of course he can make rules and especially if they are contrary to what men themselves want to do. Ok let me be clear, of course if there is an entity such as God™ he can make rules, the question is how does he communicate them to us?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 4, 2018 19:09:58 GMT
Ok let me be clear, of course if there is an entity such as God™ he can make rules, the question is how does he communicate them to us? Not by talking.... Human beings have neither the aural nor the psychological capacity to withstand the awesome power of God's true voice. Were you to hear it, your mind would cave in and your heart would explode within your chest. We went through five Adams before we figured that one out.
- Metatron
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 4, 2018 19:12:42 GMT
Ok let me be clear, of course if there is an entity such as God™ he can make rules, the question is how does he communicate them to us? Not by talking.... Human beings have neither the aural nor the psychological capacity to withstand the awesome power of God's true voice. Were you to hear it, your mind would cave in and your heart would explode within your chest. We went through five Adams before we figured that one out.
- Metatron
It's actually a good point, really this is the best use of that crazy ant to us as is us to god argument, how does God even begin to communicate. Don't get me wrong I think God™ has set up a number of processes to encourage us to come to an understanding of the universe we find ourselves in, but the kind of direct communication that would teach us not to eat shellfish is patently absurd.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 4, 2018 19:22:18 GMT
CoolJGS☺ Already asked. Keep up! That’s not what circular reasoning is dumbass! The issue isn’t what instructions need to be adopted from other cultures, it’s what instructions were NECESSARY (for the target audience), and WHY some were deemed necessary but others were not! Why is it necessary to tell a certain group of people to only collect running water (as opposed to still water), but not tell them about boiling water? These things are even related, yet one is mentioned while the other (more important suggestion) is not. This is the area where the Bible is inconsistent and unreliable. And that’s the point you keep avoiding. I have yet to see a theist at any time successfully explain away this very basic question of logic. Your feeble attempt at wit not withstanding, the Bible specifically gives instructions to the Israelites on how to sacrifice animals. It’s not enough that the animal simply be sacrificed, but it has to be done in a specific way, for a vague, convoluted, superstitious, and ultimately ridiculous reasons that serves no one’s best interests (other than, it’s just what god prefers). The authors thought that this information was important enough to be codified in scripture as “god’s word”, yet instructions on something as simple as how to properly sterilize water to avoid deadly diseases was not. Just think about the absurdity of this paradigm that you fully accept without question for a moment (if you can), and you’ll understand why secularists think religious people are mentally retarded! Yes. It gives very limited, half-ass instructions (presumably for health/safety reasons), but stops totally short on giving actual GOOD and effective instructions to accomplish the same goal? Can you explain that? No, you can’t! Neither can anyone else because the illogical cannot be explained away logically. And that’s the problem with these beliefs. Yes. And plenty of people eat shrimp now and don’t go into anaphylactic shock. But statistics are only good if you’re on the right side of them. And if your goal is to protect every faithful follower by providing sage advice, then you give them clear, effective instructions, and explain the reasoning of them so that they can be taken advantage of. Saying that SOME people can drink still water sometimes and not get sick is stating the obvious. That doesn’t invalidate the notion that people in poor communities without access to proper healthcare (which was everyone in the Old Testament) die of dysentery from drinking contaminated water, when they didn’t have to if they boiled it first! That seems like a pretty important piece of information that “god” (or his appointed authors) simply forgot about! You mean besides what studies of biology an environmental science suggests? In any case, if this wasn’t a serious problem, and it takes a serious problem for something to be addressed in scripture (like not wearing mixed fabrics ), then why give any instructions on running water sources at all? Kettle logic!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 4, 2018 19:32:27 GMT
Not by talking.... Human beings have neither the aural nor the psychological capacity to withstand the awesome power of God's true voice. Were you to hear it, your mind would cave in and your heart would explode within your chest. We went through five Adams before we figured that one out.
- Metatron
It's actually a good point, really this is the best use of that crazy ant to us as is us to god argument, how does God even begin to communicate. Don't get me wrong I think God™ has set up a number of processes to encourage us to come to an understanding of the universe we find ourselves in, but the kind of direct communication that would teach us not to eat shellfish is patently absurd. Why do you think God created us to be so weak and flawed as to NOT be able to hear or see him when that’s our primary method of communication? If god has infinite wisdom and knowledge, why wouldn’t he have come up with a better design? Or have the ability to limit the awesome power of his true voice? Even Morgan Freeman can whisper!
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 4, 2018 19:42:53 GMT
It's actually a good point, really this is the best use of that crazy ant to us as is us to god argument, how does God even begin to communicate. Don't get me wrong I think God™ has set up a number of processes to encourage us to come to an understanding of the universe we find ourselves in, but the kind of direct communication that would teach us not to eat shellfish is patently absurd. Why do you think God created us to be so weak and flawed as to NOT be able to hear or see him when that’s our primary method of communication? If god has infinite wisdom and knowledge, why wouldn’t he have come up with a better design? Or have the ability to limit the awesome power of his true voice? Even Morgan Freeman can whisper! I don't think God actively created us, I think it set the methods of evolution in process. We are not designed. I do not question what God™ the creation force is capable of or it's nature, it is so far removed from me that it would be impossible for me to understand. I don't see how you can possibly expect to comprehend a thing that is the source of all creation and in a way has all of creation as it's parts.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 4, 2018 21:33:43 GMT
Why do you think God created us to be so weak and flawed as to NOT be able to hear or see him when that’s our primary method of communication? If god has infinite wisdom and knowledge, why wouldn’t he have come up with a better design? Or have the ability to limit the awesome power of his true voice? Even Morgan Freeman can whisper! I don't think God actively created us, I think it set the methods of evolution in process. We are not designed. I do not question what God™ the creation force is capable of or it's nature, it is so far removed from me that it would be impossible for me to understand. I don't see how you can possibly expect to comprehend a thing that is the source of all creation and in a way has all of creation as it's parts. Fair enough. But now, you sound more like a theist who does not necessarily conform to Christian theology (which posits a god that created us in his own image, and who we can have a personal relationship with). Correct me if I’m wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 4, 2018 21:55:44 GMT
I don't think God actively created us, I think it set the methods of evolution in process. We are not designed. I do not question what God™ the creation force is capable of or it's nature, it is so far removed from me that it would be impossible for me to understand. I don't see how you can possibly expect to comprehend a thing that is the source of all creation and in a way has all of creation as it's parts. Fair enough. But now, you sound more like a theist who does not necessarily conform to Christian theology (which posits a god that created us in his own image, and who we can have a personal relationship with). Correct me if I’m wrong. You are wrong, well not really . Firstly I believe that the bible describes two Gods, or if you like two faces of God™. The face we are talking about is the creation face which is a tribal societies method of trying to make sense of the world around them, and give rules for either the benefit or control of their tribes depending slightly on how you read it. There is a second face of God™ that describes the personal god that is much harder to justify, but that is the face of god that has your back and who you talk to. This is pretty standard historical theology, although the church and Christianity has been moving away from it for 2000 years, can you say population control?
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 4, 2018 22:08:21 GMT
Fair enough. But now, you sound more like a theist who does not necessarily conform to Christian theology (which posits a god that created us in his own image, and who we can have a personal relationship with). Correct me if I’m wrong. You are wrong, well not really . Firstly I believe that the bible describes two Gods, or if you like two faces of God™. The face we are talking about is the creation face which is a tribal societies method of trying to make sense of the world around them, and give rules for either the benefit or control of their tribes depending slightly on how you read it. There is a second face of God™ that describes the personal god that is much harder to justify, but that is the face of god that has your back and who you talk to. This is pretty standard historical theology, although the church and Christianity has been moving away from it for 2000 years, can you say population control? So, would you consider yourself to be an agnostic theist? Or along the lines of Albert Einstein? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 4, 2018 22:11:40 GMT
You are wrong, well not really . Firstly I believe that the bible describes two Gods, or if you like two faces of God™. The face we are talking about is the creation face which is a tribal societies method of trying to make sense of the world around them, and give rules for either the benefit or control of their tribes depending slightly on how you read it. There is a second face of God™ that describes the personal god that is much harder to justify, but that is the face of god that has your back and who you talk to. This is pretty standard historical theology, although the church and Christianity has been moving away from it for 2000 years, can you say population control? So, would you consider yourself to be an agnostic theist? Or along the lines of Albert Einstein? I am an agnostic theist. I chose to interpret the universe as if it was intentionally created and I talk to a personal God™ and interpret things I see through that lens, but I am aware that there is no proof either way and it is my choice to believe as I do.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 4, 2018 22:35:49 GMT
So, would you consider yourself to be an agnostic theist? Or along the lines of Albert Einstein? I am an agnostic theist. I chose to interpret the universe as if it was intentionally created and I talk to a personal God™ and interpret things I see through that lens, but I am aware that there is no proof either way and it is my choice to believe as I do. Interesting, I don't think that anyone else on this board has claimed that label. I vaguely remember a poll, at one time, on how each poster identified, but I don't remember if agnostic theist was listed as an option. Do you remember?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 4, 2018 22:38:29 GMT
I am an agnostic theist. I chose to interpret the universe as if it was intentionally created and I talk to a personal God™ and interpret things I see through that lens, but I am aware that there is no proof either way and it is my choice to believe as I do. Interesting, I don't think that anyone else on this board has claimed that label. I vaguely remember a poll, at one time, on how each poster identified, but I don't remember if agnostic theist was listed as an option. Do you remember? Yeah I tend to just call myself a Christian, I get my understanding from the Christian thought stream (as opposed to simply the bible), but is is fair to say that most modern Christians would not recognise what I believe as Christianity. I am a baptised (as an adult) Anglican. Also it agitates Erjen when I call myself a Christian.
|
|
|
Post by looking4klingons on Jan 4, 2018 23:00:20 GMT
Here is a passage from Exodus 26 where God gives instructions for constructing his temple: Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine woven linen and blue, purple, and scarlet thread; with artistic designs of cherubim you shall weave them. 2 The length of each curtain shall be twenty-eight cubits, and the width of each curtain four cubits. And every one of the curtains shall have the same measurements. 3 Five curtains shall be coupled to one another, and the other five curtains shall be coupled to one another. 4 And you shall make loops of blue yarn on the edge of the curtain on the selvedge of one set, and likewise you shall do on the outer edge of the other curtain of the second set. 5 Fifty loops you shall make in the one curtain, and fifty loops you shall make on the edge of the curtain that is on the end of the second set, that the loops may be clasped to one another. 6 And you shall make fifty clasps of gold, and couple the curtains together with the clasps, so that it may be one tabernacle. ... Please critique the thoughts of Darren Garrison: Any concept understandable to people today would be understandable to people 3,000 years ago, if you have the patience. If there was a god 3,000 years ago and wanted people to understand the germ theory of disease, he could have told them how to make a fucking microscope instead of giving instructions on exactly what the curtains in his temple should look like.
Or, if you wish, why did God create Cancer, Smallpox, The Black Plague, Cholera, and Erectile Dysfunction? He was concerned with their health, that’s why God gave Laws to His people to be clean. The Mosaic Law makes over 400 references to “clean“ and “wash”. Sounds like God understood the importance of cleaning in order to avoid germs!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 5, 2018 3:41:37 GMT
I am an agnostic theist. I chose to interpret the universe as if it was intentionally created and I talk to a personal God™ and interpret things I see through that lens, but I am aware that there is no proof either way and it is my choice to believe as I do. Interesting, I don't think that anyone else on this board has claimed that label. I vaguely remember a poll, at one time, on how each poster identified, but I don't remember if agnostic theist was listed as an option. Do you remember? It was, because I listed myself as one (at that time).
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 5, 2018 12:23:17 GMT
Who wrote the bible? Just you say Author as if it was but one person. Perhaps no one has told him that the Bible says it is inspired by God, not written by Him.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 5, 2018 14:02:30 GMT
Who wrote the bible? Just you say Author as if it was but one person. Perhaps no one has told him that the Bible says it is inspired by God, not written by Him. l4k says he's not on here much (not hard to guess why), so I'll save you some time. He's told that God authored the Bible by putting his thoughts into the minds of the men who did the literal writing. For more detail: wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102007408
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 5, 2018 14:14:49 GMT
Perhaps no one has told him that the Bible says it is inspired by God, not written by Him. l4k says he's not on here much (not hard to guess why), so I'll save you some time. He's told that God authored the Bible by putting his thoughts into the minds of the men who did the literal writing. For more detail: wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102007408
I would have that it would have been more effective, and a much simpler thing to do, to materialise the completely perfect and finished book on earth as an indestructible document all at once rather than trusting the scribing to fallible mortals down centuries. (Even Allah apparently managed to dictate all of his sacred words to the, er, illiterate Mohammed in a cave in one go) What's the textual advantage of the truth dribbling out to so many individuals?. The results are clear to see in the current Bible, a patchwork of authors and texts, for which some of the most important articles of faith it took a committee to thrash out. But hey, its not my religion.
|
|