PDA

View Full Version : It is time to return to GOD!!



George Xie
31-10-2006, 07:31 PM
North Korea nuclear test – a potential threat!

World global warming - an unstoppable threat!

Science cannot save the world, in face, Science encourage young people go to party! (?)

But God can save the world! It is time to return to GOD through our Lord Jesus Christ

Southpaw Jim
31-10-2006, 07:38 PM
Surely you jest.


World global warming - an unstoppable threat!

I take issue with this statement.

firegoat7
31-10-2006, 07:48 PM
It is time to return to GOD through our Lord Jesus Christ

Hey man,

Jesus may have died for your sins, but I most certainly did not ask him to die for mine! In fact since I was not even born when he did die, I therefore find the contract null and void.

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
31-10-2006, 07:50 PM
Science encourage young people go to party! (?)

As a scientist I concur with this statement! :P


But God can save the world! It is time to return to GOD through our Lord Jesus Christ

Thankfully I was never with him in the first place. :lol:

MichaelBaron
31-10-2006, 07:57 PM
North Korea nuclear test – a potential threat!

World global warming - an unstoppable threat!

Science cannot save the world, in face, Science encourage young people go to party! (?)

But God can save the world! It is time to return to GOD through our Lord Jesus Christ

George, for a lot of people on this Board Jesus is not the GOD! Besides what is wrong with partying? People who party are not necessarily irrisponsible and not cable of contributing to our society. Everything is OK within the acceptable limitis

I am looking forward to the AC's response to this thread :).

arosar
31-10-2006, 08:38 PM
May I just say that George has only the best intentions. He is quite serious about his beliefs and that's all OK. I once saw him actually thank God in one of his acceptance speeches after winning another tournament.

AR

qpawn
31-10-2006, 09:08 PM
An open letter to Mr Xie
We, of the Australian atheist's union, seek to live in harmony with our theistic neighbours of all faiths. We ask that their self-appointed representative George Xie, a talented chess player, follow a certain code of conduct:

1. Not impose your religion onto parliament with a Lord's prayer.
2. Not impose your religion onto our kids by putting chaplains into GOVERNMENT schools.
3. Actually come up with sort of argument about Jesus and God that MAKES SENSE.
4. Accept that in the absence of [3] that we, as the atheist union, have the right and duty to describe your argument in any one of a number of pejorative terms: stupid, silly, mindless, baseless, pointless, irrevelant, vacuous, inane, brainless or pathetic.

Yours sincerely
Andrew Thornton
honoury secretary of the Atheist's Union.

p.s A 5th clause has just been voted upon and passed by the Intergalactic Atheist Council: we as atheists demand the right to refuse to participate in any wars that are motivated or justified by religion or its dogma. We acknowledge that becuase the vast majority of wars are religious in some form, or given religious support by their leaders, that this makes us atheists into pacificists by default. Peace man . Peace. Goodwill to all mankind,






:evil:

George Xie
31-10-2006, 09:18 PM
People who party are not necessarily irrisponsible and not cable of contributing to our society. Everything is OK within the acceptable limitis

I am looking forward to the AC's response to this thread :).


Party is fun, enjoyable and many more, nothing wrong with it, in past 50 years people like to party in every weekender, new year etc, recently it has develop to party everyday (and every night). But I think we should party in the right time! We don’t party during the difficulties;

jase
31-10-2006, 09:23 PM
What is your perspective on evolution, George?

Goughfather
31-10-2006, 09:29 PM
An open letter to Mr Xie
We, of the Australian atheist's union, seek to live in harmony with our theistic neighbours of all faiths. We ask that their self-appointed representative George Xie, a talented chess player, follow a certain code of conduct:

1. Not impose your religion onto parliament with a Lord's prayer.
2. Not impose your religion onto our kids by putting chaplains into GOVERNMENT schools.
3. Actually come up with sort of argument about Jesus and God that MAKES SENSE.
4. Accept that in the absence of [3] that we, as the atheist union, have the right and duty to describe your argument in any one of a number of pejorative terms: stupid, silly, mindless, baseless, pointless, irrevelant, vacuous, inane, brainless or pathetic.

Yours sincerely
Andrew Thornton
honoury secretary of the Atheist's Union.

p.s A 5th clause has just been voted upon and passed by the Intergalactic Atheist Council: we as atheists demand the right to refuse to participate in any wars that are motivated or justified by religion or its dogma. We acknowledge that becuase the vast majority of wars are religious in some form, or given religious support by their leaders, that this makes us atheists into pacificists by default. Peace man . Peace. Goodwill to all mankind,






:evil:

Well, considering the sheer force of your logic, the clear relevance to the broader concerns of George's post and the clarity with which you have expressed yourself, how could George not become a signatory?

George Xie
31-10-2006, 09:47 PM
When I post this thread I knew I will receive a lot of troubles and questions, but I still post it anyway, why? I guess it was my nature, I don’t want to post it (because no one likes troubles), but there is something inside of me to encouragers me to post it.

George Xie
31-10-2006, 09:47 PM
I don’t wish following texts happens in our world:

“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rush, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God – having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.” (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

qpawn
31-10-2006, 09:47 PM
Mr Xie must satisfy clause 3 of my open letter first...or else...:D

arosar
31-10-2006, 09:49 PM
OK George, I'm going to appoint myself now as your PR adviser. I quite like you so I give you this advice. Stop now OK. Forget about that little voice in your head and just listen to me.

AR

Kevin Bonham
31-10-2006, 09:56 PM
I don’t wish following texts happens in our world:

“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rush, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God – having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.” (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

In other words, business as normal for at least the past 10,000 years.

Goughfather
31-10-2006, 10:22 PM
3. Actually come up with sort of argument about Jesus and God that MAKES SENSE.

Prove the value of rationalism to me (religious, secular or otherwise) and then we can talk. Until then, I'll continue to regard modernity as a half-dead philosophical project ...

Alan Shore
31-10-2006, 10:40 PM
When I post this thread I knew I will receive a lot of troubles and questions, but I still post it anyway, why? I guess it was my nature, I don’t want to post it (because no one likes troubles), but there is something inside of me to encouragers me to post it.

Maybe Matthew 28:19? :)

Good on you anyway George, you probably won't get a lot of converts around here but continue doing what you think is right, Respect.

MichaelBaron
31-10-2006, 11:36 PM
I guess we do need more God-fearing people. It will make this world a better place :hmm:

Rincewind
01-11-2006, 07:28 AM
In other words, business as normal for at least the past 10,000 years.

That was my feeling. In fact (given that xtianity is basically a European religion) when the black death was going around in the 14th century and 1/3 of the population of Europe was wiped out I think there was probably even a stronger case for conversion based on fear of the apocalypse.

On balance the last 100 years have been pretty good for Europeans and their decendents (even with two 2 significant wars) and if we are careful and base our decisions on reason and logic we might even see out the next 100.

Desmond
01-11-2006, 07:48 AM
I once saw him actually thank God in one of his acceptance speeches after winning another tournament. Thanked God for what specifically?

EGOR
01-11-2006, 07:57 AM
George, as a fellow believer I admire you boldness.
Be faithful to what you are called to regardless of the cost.:)
EGOR

Desmond
01-11-2006, 08:24 AM
George, as a fellow believer I admire you boldness.
Be faithful to what you are called to regardless of the cost.:)
EGOROh yes, everyone stop what you are doing and admire those who are in the majority and speak out. :rolleyes:

EGOR
01-11-2006, 11:00 AM
Oh yes, everyone stop what you are doing and admire those who are in the majority and speak out. :rolleyes:
This makes no sense.:hmm:

Desmond
01-11-2006, 11:08 AM
This makes no sense.:hmm:
My thoughts exactly.

EGOR
01-11-2006, 11:38 AM
My thoughts exactly.
:lol: :lol: :wall:

qpawn
01-11-2006, 12:09 PM
Goughfather:

Prove the value of rationalism to me (religious, secular or otherwise) and then we can talk. Until then, I'll continue to regard modernity as a half-dead philosophical project ...

********

Goughfather? What a suspicious name? Surely it has heathen overtones. I will send my inquisitors to your house now to surmise if you are a servant of the devil. You will be hanged from a pole by your wrists for five days. If you clunk it you are innocent. If you confess you are burned at the stake.

pax
01-11-2006, 12:50 PM
World global warming - an unstoppable threat!

Science cannot save the world, in face, Science encourage young people go to party! (?)

It is science that has been warning about the dangers of global warming for the last 20 years, and it is from science (if anywhere) that the solutions will come.

If you believe that God will solve global warming, maybe you are right. But He will do it through the hard work and inspiration of scientists and economists, not by some miracle.

arosar
01-11-2006, 01:43 PM
OK, here's a story on scripture:

***********

An elderly woman had just returned to her home from an evening of Church services when she was startled by an intruder.

She caught the man in the act of robbing her home of its valuables and yelled, "Stop! Acts 2:38! Repent and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven."


The burglar stopped in his tracks. The woman calmly called the police and explained what she had done.

As the officer cuffed the man to take him in, he asked the burglar, "Why did you just stand there? All the old lady did was yell a scripture to you."

"Scripture?" replied the burglar. "She said she had an Ax and two 38's!"

********


AR

Goughfather
01-11-2006, 04:36 PM
Goughfather:

Prove the value of rationalism to me (religious, secular or otherwise) and then we can talk. Until then, I'll continue to regard modernity as a half-dead philosophical project ...

********

Goughfather? What a suspicious name? Surely it has heathen overtones. I will send my inquisitors to your house now to surmise if you are a servant of the devil. You will be hanged from a pole by your wrists for five days. If you clunk it you are innocent. If you confess you are burned at the stake.

I not sure how that even begins to constitute a valid argument. You can't establish the legitimacy of one philosophical stream of thought by comparing it to another. It would be just like suggesting that John Howard is a great humanitarian because Adolf Hitler was so terrible.

George Xie
01-11-2006, 05:10 PM
Looks like I am under fire. :)

I think I should add this in my thread: ‘If you disagree with me, please ignore this message.’

MichaelBaron
01-11-2006, 05:16 PM
Looks like I am under fire. :)

I think I should add this in my thread: ‘If you disagree with me, please ignore this message.’

What is the point in having a thread if everyone agrees with everyone else :P

George Xie
01-11-2006, 05:21 PM
What is the point in having a thread if everyone agrees with everyone else :P

We can start discussion how to stop the threats.

Garrett
01-11-2006, 06:08 PM
Maybe Matthew 28:19? :)

Good on you anyway George, you probably won't get a lot of converts around here but continue doing what you think is right, Respect.

yes George, I for one vigorously defend your right of freedom of speech to dribble whatever crap you want.

There was really no need to imply you have little voices inside your head, I think most of us worked it out for ourselves.

Take it easy George, try not to get too worked up.

Cheers
George.

Bereaved
02-11-2006, 02:23 PM
Hello George ( and others )

George the strength and the fortitude that God has given you to post this topic and to suggest to others that they turn to God is a wonderful thing.

I am often puzzled by the fact that people reject the opportunity to accept Faith and the wonderful things that go along with it, and instead pillory those that have faith as being feeble minded and weak willed.

To attest to faith is a sign of great strength, and I salute you for it,

May the blessings of God, and his Son Jesus Christ be with you always,

Macavity

PS remember that Jesus warned about the dangers of throwing pearls before swine

jase
02-11-2006, 02:34 PM
Hello George ( and others )
I am often puzzled by the fact that people reject the opportunity to accept Faith and the wonderful things that go along with it, and instead pillory those that have faith as being feeble minded and weak willed.


Mac, I don't associate Faith with being weak willed, and nor do many atheists in my experience. I think it shows a tremendous will to worship a literary figure in the face of the depth of evidence on the matter.

Hope you're doing well,
Jason.

MichaelBaron
02-11-2006, 03:15 PM
Hello George ( and others )

George the strength and the fortitude that God has given you to post this topic and to suggest to others that they turn to God is a wonderful thing.

I am often puzzled by the fact that people reject the opportunity to accept Faith and the wonderful things that go along with it, and instead pillory those that have faith as being feeble minded and weak willed.

To attest to faith is a sign of great strength, and I salute you for it,

May the blessings of God, and his Son Jesus Christ be with you always,

Macavity

PS remember that Jesus warned about the dangers of throwing pearls before swine

Mac, I agree with you that it is wonderful to have faith as faith is making our minds stronger. However, Not all of us believe in the same GOD as you and George and pray to his son Jesus Christ. How would you feel if a Muslim would walk into the church and adress the crowd on the importance of becoming Muslim?

I do believe In higher powers (I personally think there is God) but i am not a follower of any religion. Thus, I see no reason to have a spiritual attachement to Jesus.

I also do not see how socialising (e.g. parties) make you a less spiritual person. In fact as far as I remember you are probably more of a party person than me.
Anyway, I will see you at Elwood open on the coming weekend..we can have a chat about it :)

Watto
02-11-2006, 03:34 PM
Hello George ( and others )
I am often puzzled by the fact that people … pillory those that have faith as being feeble minded and weak willed.
Agreed. It's ridiculous. But my parents have made me biased.


George the strength and the fortitude that God has given you to post this topic and to suggest to others that they turn to God is a wonderful thing.
To attest to faith is a sign of great strength, and I salute you for it,
In George’s case I’d tend to agree that it’s a sign of strength. He’s a decent, impressive person.

With this reservation: it’s been common practice for members of fundamentalist, evangelical churches to be pressured to witness to complete strangers about God. Whether done fearfully or not, it's part of what they're meant to do.

Some groups I knew as a teenager preached that any resistance they came across was part of the ‘persecution’ one experiences as a true follower of Christ. To the point where they actually believed they were a persecuted minority like the earliest followers of Christ (as white South Africans in the 80s… where evangelical churches were all the rage that was an interesting call I thought). A point I think Boris might have been making earlier in this thread.


PS remember that Jesus warned about the dangers of throwing pearls before swine
who are the swine? Chesschatters or non-believers generally... ? :(

Bereaved
02-11-2006, 03:59 PM
Hi Watto,

The context of not throwing pearls before swine is that there was no point in trying to instil faith in God in those who had no interest in the topic,

That may apply to non believers, Chess chat BB's or any other number of people in any of many other aspects of this world we all live in,

No offence was intended to anyone,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Watto
02-11-2006, 04:42 PM
Hi Watto,

The context of not throwing pearls before swine is that there was no point in trying to instil faith in God in those who had no interest in the topic,

That may apply to non believers, Chess chat BB's or any other number of people in any of many other aspects of this world we all live in,

No offence was intended to anyone,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity
No problem, Macavity.

Desmond
02-11-2006, 04:56 PM
PS remember that Jesus warned about the dangers of throwing pearls before swineSo, if non-believers are swine, does that make you holy swine?

ElevatorEscapee
02-11-2006, 07:49 PM
So, if non-believers are swine, does that make you holy swine?

Perhaps it makes all swine something you should not eat?! :P

antichrist
03-11-2006, 10:43 AM
Was it okay to cast pearls to swine before Jesus cast the demons into them and they belly-flopped into the lake? Maybe Jesus just did not want the demons to get the pearls.

Metphorically(?) speaking, George was casting pearls (himself) to swine (ourseslves).

antichrist
03-11-2006, 10:47 AM
My trouble in returning that if it is the Christian version we are supposed to accept well I don't accept that Jesus existed. I believe that Mohammed existed so he has first guernsy so far. I believe that Sheik El Hilaly exists - does that help?

antichrist
03-11-2006, 10:54 AM
The white-anting of my belief when as an altar boy a dog eat up a vomited "Holy Communion" wafer, supposedly the body of Christ. The boy's dog had followed him to church, and when the boy vomited it up the dog lapped it up. He come around the back of the church asking me to ask the priest what to do, the priest was very blas'e about it, from then on it was just a cracker to me.

antichrist
03-11-2006, 10:58 AM
And we all remember how I took a Communion Host down to the Domain to stab it at Easter to imitate what the Christian Inquisitiors used to accuse the Jews of doing - with the Host supposedly crying out and bleeding upon being stabbed by the Jews. Well when I stabbed it the bloody thing did not cry out or bleed at all, what an anti-climax becaue the previous week I had advertised what I was doing and quite a crowd had gathered, but the climax came when Chilean George punched me for doing it and I put my hand holding the Host in self defense, his punch connected "Jesus" and he broke into a hundred pieces. If there is anything in the Jesus story He certainly let the side down that day.

Desmond
03-11-2006, 11:15 AM
My trouble in returning that if it is the Christian version we are supposed to accept well I don't accept that Jesus existed. I believe that Mohammed existed so he has first guernsy so far. I believe that Sheik El Hilaly exists - does that help?I don't think there is much doubt that Jesus existed, however that he was/is God is the point of contention.

MichaelBaron
03-11-2006, 11:29 AM
I have no problem with people believing in Jesus, Mohammed, Shiva etc. I just do not like it when religion is being "imposed" on others.

However, one thing i really like about the Bible is its 10 commandments. I guess they provide (if taken out of the religious context) pretty powerful moral guidance:hmm:

Overall, Bible, Tora and Koran are among my favorite books.

qpawn
03-11-2006, 12:05 PM
Believe it or not, despite my atheism, I value the bible as a book . The quality of writing at times is superb. Revelation is a better read than most of the pulp fiction trash that authors spit out these days.

I agree that if everyone in the world lived by the ten commandments there would be very few wars, if any, and minimal crime. Programs like A CURRENT aFFAIR would also have to go under! Imagine Naomi Robson introducing the show:

"Due to so many p-eople following those ten stupid commandments we have no more creepy conartists to show you. In fact, we don't have anything. So to keep you watching we have decided to do this..."

Naomi stands up and pulls her skirt up.

:D

"Tacky, sensationalist and cheap - that's why we are a Current A ffair".

:D



As long as you take out the bits on stoning and cutting into a certain part of the anatomy though...:D

Desmond
03-11-2006, 12:18 PM
I have no problem with people believing in Jesus, Mohammed, Shiva etc. I just do not like it when religion is being "imposed" on others. :clap: Couldn't have said it better myself.


However, one thing i really like about the Bible is its 10 commandments. I guess they provide (if taken out of the religious context) pretty powerful moral guidance:hmm:I agree with this too. There are of course many elements of truth that can be found in the bible, and many lessons can be learnt from it. This is true of almost anything, for example an unasuming nursery ryhme:

row, row, row your boat
gently down the stream
merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
life is but a dream

Quite a succinct set of instructions for living your life, really.

EGOR
03-11-2006, 01:09 PM
I don't think there is much doubt that Jesus existed, however that he was/is God is the point of contention.
Exactly.

Manny Ordonez
03-11-2006, 03:12 PM
yes George, I for one vigorously defend your right of freedom of speech to dribble whatever crap you want.
Are you saying Christianity is crap? Thats not a very nice thing to say just because you don't believe in it.

ElevatorEscapee
03-11-2006, 03:35 PM
Manny, my interpretation was that I didn't think he is suggesting such (although he may have been). I believe he was using a generic term and was focusing on the abstract rather than the specific. :)

Rincewind
03-11-2006, 04:02 PM
Exactly.

Yes, he is a young striker playing for Sevilla FC isn't he? Jesus Navas.

Pity he is not a goalie as it would give the expression "Jesus Saves" a whole new meaning. :)

qpawn
03-11-2006, 04:31 PM
The consensus among historians, both Christian and secular, is that a man called Jesus Christ did exist around the time 50 CE [common era] to -200 CE .
The reason for using common era is that it is a bit ludicrous to use BC im my opinion when it is not agreed upon when Jesus was alive!

Anyway, there is a small minority of academic opinion that contends that Jesus Christ never existed. In particluar a famous scholar called Renan. However, there are Roman carvings of Jesus' name on stones etc that discount Renan's theories in the eyes of most reputable scholars.

The real debate, I agree, is WHEN Jesus Christ was alive and WHAT sort of person he was. One extreme is that of Dr Barbara Thiering who, in her book "Jesus the Man" claims that Jesus may have lived about -200 CE.

bergil
03-11-2006, 04:33 PM
Yes, he is a young striker playing for Sevilla FC isn't he? Jesus Navas.

Pity he is not a goalie as it would give the expression "Jesus Saves" a whole new meaning. :)But Ronaldinho scores off the rebound!

Desmond
03-11-2006, 04:40 PM
Pity he is not a goalie as it would give the expression "Jesus Saves" a whole new meaning. :)For all you nerds out there: Jesus saves, and takes half damage.

qpawn
03-11-2006, 04:47 PM
Jesus saves and takes half damage.

But the ball casts a fireball spell which takes 55 hp off Jesus.

Suddenly two nerdy TSR living game dudes walk in from the LARP room walk in

"we need 2 more dudes to play the LARP vampires in New York"

A;ll the nerds stop playing Jesus and rush into the LARP room. They mutter as they leave " that Jesus dude is so boring to play. He is always speaking this gobbledegook about 'coming up from the dead in 3 days' ".

If you don't understand the above you are not a TSR nerd.
If you understand the above then may your days of nerddom be powered by Joe Dever, Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone.
:D

Goughfather
03-11-2006, 09:58 PM
The real debate, I agree, is WHEN Jesus Christ was alive and WHAT sort of person he was. One extreme is that of Dr Barbara Thiering who, in her book "Jesus the Man" claims that Jesus may have lived about -200 CE.

I must admit that I haven't really heard that argument, but on first impressions and unless I'm missing something, I'm not really sure how it could possibly stand up. You have to take the timeline of early Christianity into account. It's pretty unlikely that Jesus would have lived and died in the early to mid second century and his movement started some two hundred years later.

While I'm pretty confident that this Jesus bloke lived in the early part of the first century CE, I think your question about what sort of person Jesus really was is really worth pursuing. Clearly, while I don't think the four canonised gospels should be automatically dismissed as some are wont to do, I don't think it particularly wise to assume such accounts as flawless for the purposes of such an enquiry. Indeed, as a Liberal Christian, I would suggest that some of what we read is a loose paraphrase of Jesus' teachings and that other teachings might simply be the thoughts of the author projected onto Jesus.

I'll try to relocate a talk given by Dr Chris Forbes on the subject of the historical Jesus. Though he is a Christian and slightly more conservative than myself from what I've gathered, he is definitely no evangelical and doesn't understand the Bible to be free from error.

antichrist
04-11-2006, 01:04 PM
I didn't find any of Tacitus's prophets to be Jesus of Nazareth, I think JC may be a composite character, a lot of different ideas put together, just how the rest of the Bible is - which is why JC and the Bible are self-contradictory.

antichrist
04-11-2006, 01:06 PM
Why should we return to God when JC did not return as he (if existed) supposedly promised to in the lifetimes of the apostles (also if they existed)?

Goughfather
04-11-2006, 01:20 PM
I didn't find any of Tacitus's prophets to be Jesus of Nazareth

What about this quote:


But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.


I think JC may be a composite character, a lot of different ideas put together, just how the rest of the Bible is

Certainly each of the gospel writers come from a different perspective, write to different audiences and each put their own stresses on their particular understanding of Jesus. However, couldn't it be possible that this Jesus guy was a complex and multi-faceted character (as we all are) and that the writers are all capturing different sides of the same person?


which is why JC and the Bible are self-contradictory.

To some extent I have sympathy with this point, though I wouldn't state such an opinion in such emphatic terms. I'm actually in the middle of a thread on a Christian forum where I am suggesting that while Jesus and Paul had some understandings that were quite similar, Paul seems to have fundamentally different priorities to Jesus in certain areas.

I should also point out that Jesus' teachings fit very well alongside the prophetic tradition of the writers around the Babylonian Exile. In particular, one of his favourite quotes seems to be the suggestion that "God desires mercy, not sacrifice", written by Hosea. This criticism was directed specifically at the religious authorities of his day and is a much needed rebuke of religious authorities today.

antichrist
04-11-2006, 01:37 PM
The cream of Roman Catholic scholarship in the twientieth century admitted that throughout history Cathlic officials have interpolated(?) sympathetic Jesus passages into Tacitus's writings. At least I admire them for conceding this point. That only leaves Josephus's writings and his inclusion of Jesus looks so stupid that it does not deserve any serious debate.

So no historical record of JC!

Goughfather
04-11-2006, 01:40 PM
Did you actually read the quote, Antichrist?

Not exactly sympathetic.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Josephus quote, which quite clearly is interpolated, at least at some points.

antichrist
06-11-2006, 03:32 PM
Did you actually read the quote, Antichrist?

Not exactly sympathetic.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Josephus quote, which quite clearly is interpolated, at least at some points.

Yeah, it was sorry. I don't remember coming across that quote of Tacitus but I have given up researching that stuff now.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 05:41 AM
Yes, he is a young striker playing for Sevilla FC isn't he? Jesus Navas.

Pity he is not a goalie as it would give the expression "Jesus Saves" a whole new meaning. :)
:lol: :lol: :lol:

EGOR
08-11-2006, 05:45 AM
- which is why JC and the Bible are self-contradictory.
Prove it.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 05:49 AM
So no historical record of JC!
Can you establish that the Gospels are not historical records?

Rincewind
08-11-2006, 07:03 AM
Can you establish that the Gospels are not historical records?

For starters Matthew "records" events at which he was not present. So at best they are a records of hearsay.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 08:00 AM
For starters Matthew "records" events at which he was not present. So at best they are a records of hearsay.
Are you saying that the only valid historical records are ones writing directly by eye witnesses?

MichaelBaron
08-11-2006, 08:02 AM
After what happened to me in Elwood yesterday. I doubt there is GOD: :)

On a serious note, would not it it be the God's role to fight all injustice in this world? Why does God allow genocides, wars etc. to happen?:hmm:

Goughfather
08-11-2006, 08:15 AM
On a serious note, would not it it be the God's role to fight all injustice in this world? Why does God allow genocides, wars etc. to happen?:hmm:

Well, if you jettison the understanding of God espoused by Classical Theism that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving then you don't have a problem. However, it is probably a worthwhile to investigate whether the God of Classical Theism is inconsistent with everything that goes on in this world, since so many theists subscribe to this position. A number of theodicies have been used to try to explain this phenonenon - I'll try to list them along with an analysis of their strengths and weaknesses later.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 08:18 AM
After what happened to me in Elwood yesterday. I doubt there is GOD: :)
:lol:

On a serious note, would not it it be the God's role to fight all injustice in this world?
Don't you mean Superman?;)

Why does God allow genocides, wars etc. to happen?:hmm:
Man allows these things, trying to put it on God is just a failure to accept responsiblity for our own actions.

Desmond
08-11-2006, 08:20 AM
Prove it.
You're new, aren't you.

Desmond
08-11-2006, 08:29 AM
Don't you mean Superman?;) Which one? The one with the cape or the one who walks on water?


Man allows these things, trying to put it on God is just a failure to accept responsiblity for our own actions.If God created man and is all-knowing, then not only is he responsible for all the actions of man, but he meant it to happen this way.

MichaelBaron
08-11-2006, 08:37 AM
:lol:

Don't you mean Superman?;)

Man allows these things, trying to put it on God is just a failure to accept responsiblity for our own actions.


Well to me God is indeed kind of "SuperMan" who is looking after us. :hmm: Or what is the God's role otherwise:doh:

EGOR
08-11-2006, 09:07 AM
Well to me God is indeed kind of "SuperMan" who is looking after us. :hmm: Or what is the God's role otherwise:doh:
Very interesting question. God's primary role, from my understanding, is being the God, creater and sustainer of the whole universe. This does not make God someone who sit around with nothing to do except look after little old us. the other side of the question (which you don't seem to be worried about) is, "what is our role towards God?" You can add to that, "If we are not fulfilling our role, can we honestly expect God to fulfill our personal ideas of what his role is?"

EGOR
08-11-2006, 09:07 AM
You're new, aren't you.
No.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 09:09 AM
If God created man and is all-knowing, then not only is he responsible for all the actions of man, but he meant it to happen this way.
Your logic is flawed.

Desmond
08-11-2006, 09:14 AM
Your logic is flawed.If you tell a child to drop an egg on a hard floor, whose fault is it that the egg is broken? What was the root cause?

MichaelBaron
08-11-2006, 09:19 AM
Very interesting question. God's primary role, from my understanding, is being the God, creater and sustainer of the whole universe. This does not make God someone who sit around with nothing to do except look after little old us. the other side of the question (which you don't seem to be worried about) is, "what is our role towards God?" You can add to that, "If we are not fulfilling our role, can we honestly expect God to fulfill our personal ideas of what his role is?"


Being the God, creater and sustainer - isn't looking after humans included :hmm:

EGOR
08-11-2006, 09:23 AM
If you tell a child to drop an egg on a hard floor, whose fault is it that the egg is broken? What was the root cause?
If you give a child an egg and they drop it on the floor, whose fault is it that the egg is broken?:doh: God gave us life, God did not tell us to "drop it on the floor".

Desmond
08-11-2006, 09:28 AM
Or what is the God's role otherwise:doh:If I were floating around in some ethereal existence before space and time began (think about that for a moment :eek:), I should imagine I would write my own job description to be something along the lines of going to the beach and taking a case of beer with me. Afterall, what are they gonna do? fire me?

EGOR
08-11-2006, 09:29 AM
Being the God, creater and sustainer - isn't looking after humans included :hmm:
In a sense yes, but you are still ignoring our responsiblity in the matter. I have a daughter, looking after her is my job, but if she deliberatly sets out to harm herself, i can do only so much. I know that God does not have my limitations, but the principle is about the same. God has never promised to protect us against ourselves, we are basicly responsible for our own actions.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 09:30 AM
If I were floating around in some ethereal existence before space and time began (think about that for a moment :eek:), I should imagine I would write my own job description to be something along the lines of going to the beach and taking a case of beer with me. Afterall, what are they gonna do? fire me?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Desmond
08-11-2006, 10:26 AM
:doh: God gave us life,Is it your contention that everything good in the world is because of God, and everything bad is not his fault?


God did not tell us to "drop it on the floor".Yes, he did. To an all-knowing being, everything man does is this logical progression of man being created. If we don't worship him, it's because he made us that way. To quote a movie line, "It's like blaming a compass for pointing North."

Steve K
08-11-2006, 10:52 AM
If you give a child an egg and they drop it on the floor, whose fault is it that the egg is broken?:doh: God gave us life, God did not tell us to "drop it on the floor".

God doesn't clean up the mess either.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 11:18 AM
Is it your contention that everything good in the world is because of God, and everything bad is not his fault?
No.

Yes, he did. To an all-knowing being, everything man does is this logical progression of man being created. If we don't worship him, it's because he made us that way. To quote a movie line, "It's like blaming a compass for pointing North."
The compass does not have a choice, you and I do. Knowing how someone is going to choose is not the same as forcing them to make that choice. I regularly give my daughter choices, sometimes I know what choice she's make, sometimes I don't (sometimes I think I do and get it wrong.). God gives us the choice, the only difference is that God always knows what we will choose, but it is still our choice.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 11:24 AM
God doesn't clean up the mess either.
If my daughter makes a mess, she cleans it up.

antichrist
08-11-2006, 11:51 AM
Prove it.

Eye for an eye and turn the other cheek.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 12:04 PM
Eye for an eye and turn the other cheek.
Wrong.:doh:
Eye for an eye is part of the legal code God gave to Israel. In other words, if some commited a crime that lead to the loss of an eye, the authorities where to punish the cimminal by removing an eye.
Turn the other cheek is how Jesus told his followers to personally respond to the attack of an other.
There is no contradiction, try again.:D

antichrist
08-11-2006, 12:07 PM
If you tell a child to drop an egg on a hard floor, whose fault is it that the egg is broken? What was the root cause?


Is the same principle involved if you leave halal meat out and the cat eats it - whose fault is it?

antichrist
08-11-2006, 12:09 PM
Wrong.:doh:
Eye for an eye is part of the legal code God gave to Israel. In other words, if some commited a crime that lead to the loss of an eye, the authorities where to punish the cimminal by removing an eye.
Turn the other cheek is how Jesus told his followers to personally respond to the attack of an other.
There is no contradiction, try again.:D

Isn't Jesus God??

And did Israel take any notice of this directive?

antichrist
08-11-2006, 12:11 PM
If you give a child an egg and they drop it on the floor, whose fault is it that the egg is broken?:doh: God gave us life, God did not tell us to "drop it on the floor".

God created angel Lucifer knowing full well in advance that he would revolt etc etc the rest is history - why didn't God change the receipe?

All of history may not have occurred, God may have only created us this morning but instilled old memories into us.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 12:13 PM
Isn't Jesus God??
Not relevant, one is a legal response and the other is a personal response.

And did Israel take any notice of this directive?
As far as I know.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 12:15 PM
Is the same principle involved if you leave halal meat out and the cat eats it - whose fault is it?
:doh:

antichrist
08-11-2006, 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
To all those querying whether Peter Parr was a witness etc to the St George debacle - 1 billion Christians claim to know Jesus existed and believe all stupid miracles by him but they weren't there either.

Egor
At least we have something in writing to go on.
__________________


Was there an independent DOP and Arbitar and scoresheet handed in on these miracles?

EGOR
08-11-2006, 12:16 PM
God created angel Lucifer knowing full well in advance that he would revolt etc etc the rest is history - why didn't God change the receipe?

All of history may not have occurred, God may have only created us this morning but instilled old memories into us.
Your point being? (Sorry, I keep forgetting, you have no point!:lol: :lol: :owned: )

antichrist
08-11-2006, 12:18 PM
Not relevant, one is a legal response and the other is a personal response.

A/C
Is that like a core and non-core promise? You are beginning to sound like our mate Sheik el Hilaly - if the meat was left out for Muslim men it would not stand a chance but a true blood Cronulla Aussie would think it was just getting a tan. If Jesus is God then what he says personally and legally should be consistent otherwise he may be a schritzo and civil wars are fought on what he was suposedly said. Christian over Jew.

As far as I know.

In recent history?

antichrist
08-11-2006, 12:19 PM
Your point being? (Sorry, I keep forgetting, you have no point!:lol: :lol: :owned: )

re Lucifer meaning that God created the Problem of Evil because he felt like a game of chess

EGOR
08-11-2006, 12:45 PM
Is that like a core and non-core promise? You are beginning to sound like our mate Sheik el Hilaly - if the meat was left out for Muslim men it would not stand a chance but a true blood Cronulla Aussie would think it was just getting a tan. If Jesus is God then what he says personally and legally should be consistent otherwise he may be a schritzo and civil wars are fought on what he was suposedly said. Christian over Jew.
You really no how to not get something, it's a real gift you have. How the authorities should respond to violence and how a private individual should respond is supposed to be different. Suppose in Jesus' time the Jewish authorities the eye for eye law, it would not the the responisiblity of the person who lost an eye to retaliate and take out the others eye. (They should follow Jesus' direction turn the other cheak, which is basically, don't retaliate.) However, the legal authorities arrest, put on trial and exicute the punishment. (Eye for eye)
Do you get it now!:wall: One is a direction to the authorities, the other to individuals.


In recent history?
I don't think so.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 12:45 PM
re Lucifer meaning that God created the Problem of Evil because he felt like a game of chess
Are you sure about that?

Desmond
08-11-2006, 12:54 PM
The compass does not have a choice, you and I do. Knowing how someone is going to choose is not the same as forcing them to make that choice. But if God created us deliberately with the knowledge that we would make a certain choice at a particular juncture, it is ultimately his responsibility and he is responsible for that choice. To an all-knowing being, the human decision-making process would be not much more complex than a compass's "decision" to point North.


I regularly give my daughter choices, sometimes I know what choice she's make, sometimes I don't (sometimes I think I do and get it wrong.). God gives us the choice, the only difference is that God always knows what we will choose, but it is still our choice.While in a sense you were the creator of that child, at the time you did so you did not have a complete understanding of everything she would do in her life, nor a complete understanding of how the people around her would be changed by her, nor a complete understanding of how she would by extrapolation change the world. An all-knowing God would know all this of every atom in the universe.

Goughfather
08-11-2006, 12:56 PM
Allow me to just make a few small contributions:


If you tell a child to drop an egg on a hard floor, whose fault is it that the egg is broken? What was the root cause?

Boris, if you're hearing a small voice inside your head telling you to do things, then I suggest you seek psychological and/or psychiatric help.


Wrong.:doh:
Eye for an eye is part of the legal code God gave to Israel. In other words, if some commited a crime that lead to the loss of an eye, the authorities where to punish the cimminal by removing an eye.
Turn the other cheek is how Jesus told his followers to personally respond to the attack of an other.
There is no contradiction, try again.:D

I think I have to agree with you both, at least to some extent. Antichrist, you need to stop ripping verses out of their original context - that's what fundamentalists and evangelicals do. Like Egor said, these verses respond to a particular need at a particular time in the history of Israel. Furthermore, it is unclear that this verse is essentially about retributive justice but rather pragmatic damage control. This law existed so that punishment was measured. Otherwise, in the pursuit of revenge in the heat of moment, the response would quite possibly be disproportionate to the original crime. In short, this law existed to prevent individuals taking the law into their own hands and compounding a situation further.

While I agree with Egor with respect to the issue above, I would suggest that Jesus espouses an ethic on many issues that does seem to contradict other parts of the Bible. Perhaps the most telling example of this is Jesus' stance on divorce. In rejecting the old position, he suggests that divorce was only permitted because of the "hardness of heart" experienced by Moses' audience.

Ultimately, Jesus' response to various issues does pose a lot of problems for those that understand the Bible as being inerrant and take a literalist approach to its interpretation. But isn't it just possible that the Bible could contain contradictions and yet Jesus message and mission were legitimate?

Basil
08-11-2006, 12:58 PM
Hands up anybody who seriously expects to change anyone's mind - even just a poofteenth!

Desmond
08-11-2006, 01:05 PM
Boris, if you're hearing a small voice inside your head telling you to do things, then I suggest you seek psychological and/or psychiatric help.Would you give that advice to someone during prayer?

Goughfather
08-11-2006, 01:19 PM
Would you give that advice to someone during prayer?

If they heard an audible voice, then of course I would.

Desmond
08-11-2006, 01:49 PM
If they heard an audible voice, then of course I would.Glad to hear it. Next time I am praying and hear an audible voice from an undiscernable source, I'll be sure to remember your advice.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 01:49 PM
But if God created us deliberately with the knowledge that we would make a certain choice at a particular juncture, it is ultimately his responsibility and he is responsible for that choice. To an all-knowing being, the human decision-making process would be not much more complex than a compass's "decision" to point North.
It seems to me that your underlying assumption is that knowledge = control?

While in a sense you were the creator of that child, at the time you did so you did not have a complete understanding of everything she would do in her life, nor a complete understanding of how the people around her would be changed by her, nor a complete understanding of how she would by extrapolation change the world. An all-knowing God would know all this of every atom in the universe.
As above

Desmond
08-11-2006, 02:05 PM
It seems to me that your underlying assumption is that knowledge = control?That is an interesting question, and one could argue that knowledge = power = control. However, that debate is irrelevant here.

I am not saying that God controls man's actions at this point in time, but rather that he set an inexorable chain of events in motion when creating the universe, of which man's (as individuals and as a group) actions are a subset. As such, anything that I do today is the logical outcome of what God did then. Since he knew then everything that would happen before he created the universe, he is ultimately responsible. To say that man is to blame for the problems in the world is untenable; if you believe in a god that is all-knowing, you have to believe that that god is also the one with whom the buck stops, and all complaints may be addressed to him.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 02:06 PM
You have some very interesting things to say Goughfather.

I think I have to agree with you both, at least to some extent. Antichrist, you need to stop ripping verses out of their original context - that's what fundamentalists and evangelicals do.
Being a fundamentalist and evangelical I take some exception what you are saying about me here. While I'm willing to admit that there are some fundamentalists and evangelicals who do what you are saying, the same can said about some liberals. Basically, it's a part of human nature to want make things say what you want them to, rather than what they actually say (it's the whole basis of post-modernism:whistle: ).

Like Egor said, these verses respond to a particular need at a particular time in the history of Israel. Furthermore, it is unclear that this verse is essentially about retributive justice but rather pragmatic damage control. This law existed so that punishment was measured. Otherwise, in the pursuit of revenge in the heat of moment, the response would quite possibly be disproportionate to the original crime. In short, this law existed to prevent individuals taking the law into their own hands and compounding a situation further.
Very well put.

While I agree with Egor with respect to the issue above, I would suggest that Jesus espouses an ethic on many issues that does seem to contradict other parts of the Bible. Perhaps the most telling example of this is Jesus' stance on divorce. In rejecting the old position, he suggests that divorce was only permitted because of the "hardness of heart" experienced by Moses' audience.
There is only a contradiction here if Jesus was wrong when he stated reason why divorce was allowed under Moses. If what Jesus said was the truth, (and naturally I believe he was) then there is no contradiction.

Ultimately, Jesus' response to various issues does pose a lot of problems for those that understand the Bible as being inerrant and take a literalist approach to its interpretation.
I don't see a lot of problems with an inerrant, literalist approach to Bible interpretation. However, I suspect we my mean different things when using the terms inerrant and literalist.

But isn't it just possible that the Bible could contain contradictions and yet Jesus message and mission were legitimate?
It is possible, but up to this point in my life I have found no contradictions in the Bible.

Kevin Bonham
08-11-2006, 02:14 PM
Well, if you jettison the understanding of God espoused by Classical Theism that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving then you don't have a problem.

But whether you are left with anything a believer should worship or an unbeliever should be concerned about is quite another matter.


In a sense yes, but you are still ignoring our responsiblity in the matter. I have a daughter, looking after her is my job, but if she deliberatly sets out to harm herself, i can do only so much. I know that God does not have my limitations, but the principle is about the same. God has never promised to protect us against ourselves, we are basicly responsible for our own actions.

Extremely flawed example. Firstly you underestimate the difference that God lacking your limitations would make - if God knows everything God is in a far better position to avert such attempts at self-harm.

Secondly while you were involved in the "creation" of your daughter, if you had God's alleged powers you could have (i) foreseen whether she would ever set out to harm herself (ii) if so, altered her nature in advance to avert this or (iii) if so, altered the nature of things around her so that these attempts would fail.


The compass does not have a choice, you and I do.

This concept of "choice" is bogus. If God is all-knowing God knows how we will choose, and therefore this choice is predetermined and God is responsible for it. If God does not know how we will choose then God is not all-knowing, and furthermore our decision is uncaused and random and hence we are not accountable to God for it.

I do hope this debate can progress without "free will" being invoked. Free will is garbage, it's the philosophical equivalent of falling for Scholars Mate.


It seems to me that your underlying assumption is that knowledge = control?

If a being is all powerful then knowledge = the potential to control and you have to explain why that potential is not exercised in cases where to do so would appear to be beneficial.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 02:58 PM
I am not saying that God controls man's actions at this point in time, but rather that he set an inexorable chain of events in motion when creating the universe, of which man's (as individuals and as a group) actions are a subset. As such, anything that I do today is the logical outcome of what God did then. Since he knew then everything that would happen before he created the universe, he is ultimately responsible. To say that man is to blame for the problems in the world is untenable; if you believe in a god that is all-knowing, you have to believe that that god is also the one with whom the buck stops, and all complaints may be addressed to him.
This is something that has been very hotly debated for many years amoungst Christians. In very wide terms there are three main views.

1. Yes, God is ultimately responsible, and he has every right to punish or save whoever he pleases.
2. God does know all but, because of the way he made us, we are responsible because he has given us (sorry Kevin) free will.
3. God has somehow arranged it so that he doesn't know all, but he is still God so we should trust him.

I'm personally not real happy with any of these, I'm currently living with the apparent contradiction: God is all powerful, I'm responsible and accountable to God for my actions. You say this is impossible, my response is that I worship the God of the impossible, but I'm still asking questions.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 03:10 PM
Hi Kevin,
Now that you are here, it feels like old times.:D

But whether you are left with anything a believer should worship or an unbeliever should be concerned about is quite another matter.
I tend to agree.

Extremely flawed example. Firstly you underestimate the difference that God lacking your limitations would make - if God knows everything God is in a far better position to avert such attempts at self-harm.
Secondly while you were involved in the "creation" of your daughter, if you had God's alleged powers you could have (i) foreseen whether she would ever set out to harm herself (ii) if so, altered her nature in advance to avert this or (iii) if so, altered the nature of things around her so that these attempts would fail.
I know my example is flawed. When it come to God all examples, analogies are flawed because cannot be fully explained in human terms.
I find your (ii) interesting. Yes, God would have to change our natures, we would no longer be who we are.

This concept of "choice" is bogus. If God is all-knowing God knows how we will choose, and therefore this choice is predetermined and God is responsible for it. If God does not know how we will choose then God is not all-knowing, and furthermore our decision is uncaused and random and hence we are not accountable to God for it.
I've responded to this in my post to Boris.

I do hope this debate can progress without "free will" being invoked. Free will is garbage, it's the philosophical equivalent of falling for Scholars Mate.
I promise not to.:D

If a being is all powerful then knowledge = the potential to control and you have to explain why that potential is not exercised in cases where to do so would appear to be beneficial.
It is beneficial in that by not controling us we truely become his children, not just his creation.:eek:

Kevin Bonham
08-11-2006, 03:32 PM
Now that you are here, it feels like old times

It took a few pages for me to see anything worth bothering with. :P


It is beneficial in that by not controling us we truely become his children, not just his creation.:eek:

But God has no choice to not control our natures. If God is all-knowing God knows exactly what will happen to us throughout our lives as a consequence of creating anything. The only way God can get around that problem is by deciding not to know what will happen but in this case God ceases to be all-knowing.

(Should probably inform those not familiar with my views that I'm actually an atheist of sorts; any references to God are purely hypothetical.)

EGOR
08-11-2006, 03:55 PM
It took a few pages for me to see anything worth bothering with. :P
:lol: :lol: :lol:

But God has no choice to not control our natures. If God is all-knowing God knows exactly what will happen to us throughout our lives as a consequence of creating anything. The only way God can get around that problem is by deciding not to know what will happen but in this case God ceases to be all-knowing.
It could be fun arguing over what God can and cannot do, but in the end it is all only conjector. It's all based on human logic, and who's to say that human logic even applies to God? Just because you or I think that being all powerful must work a certian way does not mean that it does.
Sorry for another flawed example: My three year old daughter constantly tells me what I want to do and insists on it, that doesn't change the fact that I don't. for her the logic is perfect, she wants me to do it, therefor I want to do it. But I know more than her. We say God must act in a certian way or do/not certian things if God is all powerful. But God knows more than us.

(Should probably inform those not familiar with my views that I'm actually an atheist of sorts; any references to God are purely hypothetical.)
What do you mean by "atheist of sorts"?

Kevin Bonham
08-11-2006, 04:21 PM
It could be fun arguing over what God can and cannot do, but in the end it is all only conjector. It's all based on human logic, and who's to say that human logic even applies to God? Just because you or I think that being all powerful must work a certian way does not mean that it does.

The problem I refer to arises simply from the definitions of the words "all knowing" and "all powerful" and these are defined by humans. All knowing means knowing everything it is logically possible to know. All powerful means able to do everything it is logically possible to do. All powerful plus all knowing means any time you do something you know exactly what will happen. This is a matter of definition; logic doesn't really come into it.


Sorry for another flawed example: My three year old daughter constantly tells me what I want to do and insists on it, that doesn't change the fact that I don't. for her the logic is perfect, she wants me to do it, therefor I want to do it. But I know more than her. We say God must act in a certian way or do/not certian things if God is all powerful. But God knows more than us.

It's got nothing to do with whether we know what God wants. It has to do with the logical consequences of us defining God as having certain natures.

Really I can quite easily turn the above quote back on your position. You say God is all knowing and all powerful. Perhaps you just want God to be that way and maybe even if there is a God, then you have just got God's nature totally wrong. The idea that you have any more of a clue about God than your daughter would have about you is a prepostrous one since the difference in the first case is far greater. (In any case, when she tells you what you want, is this an opinion, or is this just a way of trying to convince you to do something?)

If I believed God existed at all I would constantly pile abuse upon puny fellow humans who had the sheer presumption to believe that they could figure out God's nature from a bunch of blatantly inconsistent wishful thinking and a moth-eaten scattering of supposed testimonies. If I believed in God I would consider much of Christianity totally blasphemous in its presumption to have a clue about God's nature and will (although I would not necessarily assume God cared about such presumption from so-called followers.)


What do you mean by "atheist of sorts"?

I use the term with some reservation because for some people an atheist is either (i) a person who claims to know with absolute certainty that God does not exist or (ii) a person who believes the concept of God's existence is a sensible one but just doesn't think it is true. For reasons discussed at length on the "Does God exist?" thread (which I don't intend rehashing here) my view is that the statement "God exists" is not merely false but also nonsense.

Goughfather
08-11-2006, 05:01 PM
There is only a contradiction here if Jesus was wrong when he stated reason why divorce was allowed under Moses. If what Jesus said was the truth, (and naturally I believe he was) then there is no contradiction.

I don't have a problem with what Jesus is saying at all - like you, I believe what he is saying is correct. However, what he says raises some interesting implications about the way we view the Bible as a whole. Is it remotely possible that there are other commands in the Bible that only exist because of the hardness of our hearts, just like the teaching in the Torah on divorce?


But whether you are left with anything a believer should worship or an unbeliever should be concerned about is quite another matter.

Perhaps. I should point out that I'm not necessarily saying that this God is worthy of worship of should be feared. I'm simply saying that even if the question of evil makes serious inroads into the legitimacy of Classical Theism (and I'm not convinced it does), it doesn't necessarily follow that no God exists.

It's probably possible for this God to be either worthy of worship or something for unbelievers to fear, but not both simultaneously. Personally, while I don't have much say in the matter, I'd probably steer towards a God who is worthy of worship, rather than a God that unbelievers should fear. In this scenario, while unbelievers need not concern themselves with God's wrath, they may be drawn towards God's love.


If a being is all powerful then knowledge = the potential to control and you have to explain why that potential is not exercised in cases where to do so would appear to be beneficial.

Well, this is really the starting point of any theodicy in which the bad that is inflicted by evil must be more than counterbalanced by the good to be attained by not averting evil. The line espoused by Egor is the rather self-explanatory "Free Will Theodicy". The presuppositions underlying this theodicy are (a) that free will exists; and that (b) the existence of free will is a greater good than the corresponding bad of all the evil in the world. Now, even if free will does exist, then it has to be said that some people have much more freedom than others. For instance, how much freedom do you have if you live in the Third World and you need to find a way to put food on the table for your starving family? It would seem that in this instance that the free will theodicy creates more problems than it solves because those who suffer the least have the most free will and those who suffer the most have the least free will. In effect, God is subsidising the West at the expense of the Third World.

Perhaps one of the more helpful theodicies is the "Soul Making Theodicy" in which the object in life is not our happiness, but rather our growth. In this theodicy, it is through suffering that people gain wisdom and become truly better people. I suggest that this theodicy also has holes (for instance, is the amount of suffering that people undergo really necessary for growth and wisdom? Couldn't they grow with just a little less suffering?) and that accordingly it can't stand up by itself as a comprehensive explanation for all the evil that occurs in this world. However, it may simply be one of a number of theodicies that co-exist, which, when complemented with each other provide a more holistic understanding of the problem of evil.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 08:25 PM
The line espoused by Egor is the rather self-explanatory "Free Will Theodicy". The presuppositions underlying this theodicy are (a) that free will exists; and that (b) the existence of free will is a greater good than the corresponding bad of all the evil in the world.
I'll be back to respond to other stuff later but I must point one thing out, the above is not the line that I espouse. Free will is not something which I am comfortable with.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 09:35 PM
The problem I refer to arises simply from the definitions of the words "all knowing" and "all powerful" and these are defined by humans. All knowing means knowing everything it is logically possible to know. All powerful means able to do everything it is logically possible to do. All powerful plus all knowing means any time you do something you know exactly what will happen. This is a matter of definition; logic doesn't really come into it.
It's got nothing to do with whether we know what God wants. It has to do with the logical consequences of us defining God as having certain natures.
This is all really supporting what I'm trying to say. We create terms to try and define God, who is by very nature undefinable, in an attempt to gain some understanding. We than apply human logic to the human definitions and come up with an imperfect picture. Then some, like yourself, who do not want to believe in a God, use the holes that exsist in the imperfect picture to put down the whole concept of God.

Really I can quite easily turn the above quote back on your position. You say God is all knowing and all powerful. Perhaps you just want God to be that way and maybe even if there is a God, then you have just got God's nature totally wrong.
Yes, my beliefs about God are basically guess work based on my flawed understanding of the Bible, what I have been taught all my life in church, and the cazy belief that I actually have a relationship with God and that God cares enough to want to help me to understand.

The idea that you have any more of a clue about God than your daughter would have about you is a prepostrous one since the difference in the first case is far greater.
I did not claim that I have more of a clue about God than my daughter has about me, I would say the opposite is true.

(In any case, when she tells you what you want, is this an opinion, or is this just a way of trying to convince you to do something?)
It seems to be a (for her) genuine belief, it's virually impossible to convince her that I don't want to do what she says I want to do.

If I believed God existed at all I would constantly pile abuse upon puny fellow humans who had the sheer presumption to believe that they could figure out God's nature from a bunch of blatantly inconsistent wishful thinking and a moth-eaten scattering of supposed testimonies.
I have many claim the bible to be inconsistant and no one back it up with any kind of proof or evidance, can you? Although, I agree that any presuption to have God figured out is arrogant and wrong.

If I believed in God I would consider much of Christianity totally blasphemous in its presumption to have a clue about God's nature and will (although I would not necessarily assume God cared about such presumption from so-called followers.)
This is just saying the above in another way.

I use the term with some reservation because for some people an atheist is either (i) a person who claims to know with absolute certainty that God does not exist or (ii) a person who believes the concept of God's existence is a sensible one but just doesn't think it is true. For reasons discussed at length on the "Does God exist?" thread (which I don't intend rehashing here) my view is that the statement "God exists" is not merely false but also nonsense.
I should have known this.

EGOR
08-11-2006, 09:41 PM
I don't have a problem with what Jesus is saying at all - like you, I believe what he is saying is correct. However, what he says raises some interesting implications about the way we view the Bible as a whole. Is it remotely possible that there are other commands in the Bible that only exist because of the hardness of our hearts, just like the teaching in the Torah on divorce?
Yes it is. It is also possible that some of the laws of the Old Testament where purely practical in nature and only applied to the conditions that exsisted at the time. Your point?

Goughfather
08-11-2006, 10:19 PM
Yes it is. It is also possible that some of the laws of the Old Testament where purely practical in nature and only applied to the conditions that exsisted at the time. Your point?

I'm not merely talking about the Old Testament. Remembering that the texts are a product of their time and their culture, there's no reason that other positions taken in the Bible, including the New Testament existed because of hardness of heart. Perhaps the role of women in the ministry and homosexuality have been two issues where people have been hard hearted throughout history.

Rincewind
08-11-2006, 10:34 PM
Are you saying that the only valid historical records are ones writing directly by eye witnesses?

No but if he records things in the same way without making it clear what he observed and stories which were circulating at the time which he could have only heard second hand and decades later, then surely you have to question the reliability. Eye witness accounts are clearly better than hearsay and when it is not clear when you are dealing with one or the other then...

Kevin Bonham
08-11-2006, 11:14 PM
This is all really supporting what I'm trying to say. We create terms to try and define God, who is by very nature undefinable, in an attempt to gain some understanding. We than apply human logic to the human definitions and come up with an imperfect picture. Then some, like yourself, who do not want to believe in a God, use the holes that exsist in the imperfect picture to put down the whole concept of God.

Actually I can put down the concept of God quite effectively without those holes. But Christians don't do themselves any favours if they try to push for more than is logically possible.


I have many claim the bible to be inconsistant and no one back it up with any kind of proof or evidance, can you?

My comment was not about the Bible. The debate about whether the Bible is consistent or not doesn't interest me all that much. My comment was about basic philosophical problems with widespread Christian attitudes to the sort of basic questions I've been discussing on this thread.

Desmond
09-11-2006, 09:01 AM
This is something that has been very hotly debated for many years amoungst Christians. In very wide terms there are three main views.

1. Yes, God is ultimately responsible, and he has every right to punish or save whoever he pleases.
2. God does know all but, because of the way he made us, we are responsible because he has given us (sorry Kevin) free will.
Is there any difference between 1 & 2?

If you agree that God is ultimately responsible, why should he punish or reward anyone other than himself? Again, it's like blaming the compass.


3. God has somehow arranged it so that he doesn't know all, but he is still God so we should trust him.He either knows all or he doesn't. Presumabely the supreme being and creator of the universe is not forgetful. :eek:


I'm personally not real happy with any of these, ok
I'm currently living with the apparent contradiction: God is all powerful, I'm responsible and accountable to God for my actions. You are right, that is a contradiction. Where there is contradiction there is error.
You say this is impossible, my response is that I worship the God of the impossible, but I'm still asking questions.Is this the "the lord works in mysterious" argument? You are certainly to be commended for asking questions. My advice to you would be that if you ask questions and the answers come back "It's a mystery" or similar to tell them that that is unacceptable.

Desmond
09-11-2006, 09:02 AM
(Should probably inform those not familiar with my views that I'm actually an atheist of sorts; any references to God are purely hypothetical.)That is my position as well, in case I have not made it clear.

MichaelBaron
09-11-2006, 09:49 AM
I'm not merely talking about the Old Testament. Remembering that the texts are a product of their time and their culture, there's no reason that other positions taken in the Bible, including the New Testament existed because of hardness of heart. Perhaps the role of women in the ministry and homosexuality have been two issues where people have been hard hearted throughout history.

How about someone posts the complete text of both New and Old Testiments over here:D That would provide us with a great source of reference.:D

Desmond
09-11-2006, 09:53 AM
This is all really supporting what I'm trying to say. We create terms to try and define God, who is by very nature undefinable, in an attempt to gain some understanding.That is interesting. My opinion is that when man created the concept of god/s in our pre-history, the main function of the idea of god was to explain the (then) inexplicable happenings in their environment; thunder, lightning and so on. Of course, our definitions and understandings of god have evolved a lot since then, with more and more events being explained not as the function of god, but as a function of the universe as we have come to understand it better. And now, according to some of the arguments here, god is responsible for nothing other that the inception of the universe.

antichrist
09-11-2006, 04:48 PM
You really no how to not get something, it's a real gift you have. How the authorities should respond to violence and how a private individual should respond is supposed to be different. Suppose in Jesus' time the Jewish authorities the eye for eye law, it would not the the responisiblity of the person who lost an eye to retaliate and take out the others eye. (They should follow Jesus' direction turn the other cheak, which is basically, don't retaliate.) However, the legal authorities arrest, put on trial and exicute the punishment. (Eye for eye)
Do you get it now!:wall: One is a direction to the authorities, the other to individuals.
.

Are you saying that those individuals who suffered under the Holocaust should not have retaliated because they are not a government??? I would certainly be retaliating - bugger what any God or authority was supposed to have said!

Remember God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back on the burning city - is that eye for an eye?

I am glad that you and Dennis Jessop both appreciate my gifts from God.

If someone came and shot you in the leg and you had a gun in range, are you saying that you would not shoot the so and so back?

antichrist
09-11-2006, 04:53 PM
Are you sure about that?

Well I can't think of any other reason why he would create Lucifer as "he" did.

He must have been bored with all those angels, cherubs and nuns up there that he could not touch.

antichrist
10-11-2006, 03:23 PM
I tried to return to God but he had taken out a restraining order against me.

MichaelBaron
11-11-2006, 01:15 AM
I tried to return to God but he had taken out a restraining order against me.
Its Ok. You can always try to return to him during your next life :)

antichrist
11-11-2006, 12:40 PM
Its Ok. You can always try to return to him during your next life :)


Will I still get my deposit back?

antichrist
12-11-2006, 12:57 PM
Its Ok. You can always try to return to him during your next life :)

I sold my soul to the Devil because he outbid God - 30 pieces exactly

EGOR
13-11-2006, 08:59 AM
I'm not merely talking about the Old Testament. Remembering that the texts are a product of their time and their culture, there's no reason that other positions taken in the Bible, including the New Testament existed because of hardness of heart. Perhaps the role of women in the ministry and homosexuality have been two issues where people have been hard hearted throughout history.
Perhaps you are right, perhaps not. If you are interested, I'd be happy to debate these issues in a new thread. Although, such a debate may not go down well with a lot of the people who post here.:hmm:

EGOR
13-11-2006, 09:21 AM
No but if he records things in the same way without making it clear what he observed and stories which were circulating at the time which he could have only heard second hand and decades later, then surely you have to question the reliability.
so your objection is that the author of Matthew chose to write his account in a purely third person perspective. Do you think it might be possible to find hundreds (or thousands) of historical documents and/or newspaper reports that are written from a purely third person perspective? That many of them are a very similar mixture of personal observation and eye witness accounts?

Eye witness accounts are clearly better than hearsay and when it is not clear when you are dealing with one or the other then...
Yes, eye witness accounts may be better (remember their subjective nature), but how much of ancient history, taught as basically factual, is based exactly on what you are calling, "hearsay"?

EGOR
13-11-2006, 09:31 AM
Actually I can put down the concept of God quite effectively without those holes.
Ok, let's hear it.

EGOR
13-11-2006, 10:08 AM
I like your new avatar.:lol: :lol:

Is there any difference between 1 & 2?
for those within Christianity who like to argue about these things there is apparently a big difference. The difference is that one is saying that, because God is sovereign, mankind does not have a choice, but is responsible anyway. the other wants to keep thidea that God is sovereign, but give mankind choice and responsiblity for it's actions.

ok You are right, that is a contradiction. Where there is contradiction there is error.
Yes, but where is the error, could it be that we are in error by declaring it a contradiction?

Is this the "the lord works in mysterious" argument?
No, it's the, "it's reasonable to think that we cannot completely understand an allpowerful being", argument.

You are certainly to be commended for asking questions. My advice to you would be that if you ask questions and the answers come back "It's a mystery" or similar to tell them that that is unacceptable.
I do.

EGOR
13-11-2006, 10:10 AM
That is interesting. My opinion is that when man created the concept of god/s in our pre-history, the main function of the idea of god was to explain the (then) inexplicable happenings in their environment; thunder, lightning and so on. Of course, our definitions and understandings of god have evolved a lot since then, with more and more events being explained not as the function of god, but as a function of the universe as we have come to understand it better. And now, according to some of the arguments here, god is responsible for nothing other that the inception of the universe.
It is an interesting opinion, and one you are completely entitled to have.

EGOR
13-11-2006, 10:15 AM
Are you saying that those individuals who suffered under the Holocaust should not have retaliated because they are not a government??? I would certainly be retaliating - bugger what any God or authority was supposed to have said!
A totally different situation, "turn the other cheak" is individual to individual, is not ment to apply unjust actions of a government.

Remember God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back on the burning city - is that eye for an eye?
Not relivent.

If someone came and shot you in the leg and you had a gun in range, are you saying that you would not shoot the so and so back?
I hope that I would not.

EGOR
13-11-2006, 10:16 AM
Well I can't think of any other reason why he would create Lucifer as "he" did.
You not being able to think of another reason is not a strong argument.

Desmond
13-11-2006, 11:59 AM
for those within Christianity who like to argue about these things there is apparently a big difference. The difference is that one is saying that, because God is sovereign, mankind does not have a choice, but is responsible anyway. the other wants to keep thidea that God is sovereign, but give mankind choice and responsiblity for it's actions.Does God punish in both instances?


Yes, but where is the error, could it be that we are in error by declaring it a contradiction?Generally speaking, you are of course right. However, since we both agree that there is contradiction in this case, your explanation is not valid.


No, it's the, "it's reasonable to think that we cannot completely understand an allpowerful being", argument.All-powerful? This is a well-known fallacy, as can be illustrated by a number of logical paradoxes. For example: can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift? If he can create the stone, then he is not all-powerful since he cannot lift it. If he cannot create the stone, he is not all-powerful.

Goughfather
13-11-2006, 01:11 PM
All-powerful? This is a well-known fallacy, as can be illustrated by a number of logical paradoxes. For example: can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift? If he can create the stone, then he is not all-powerful since he cannot lift it. If he cannot create the stone, he is not all-powerful.

It's been a rather long time since I have accused anyone of being a village atheist and/or spouting inane trailer park scholarship, but I'm rather tempted to do so in this case. Omnipotence doesn't refer to the ability to do the logically impossible, but merely the capacity to do that which power allows.

Desmond
13-11-2006, 01:23 PM
Omnipotence doesn't refer to the ability to do the logically impossible, but merely the capacity to do that which power allows.Omnipotence itself is a logical impossibility.

EGOR
13-11-2006, 01:33 PM
Does God punish in both instances?
Yes, althogh some holding to the second view may try to argue that it is not punishment, but the natural consiquence of their actions

Generally speaking, you are of course right. However, since we both agree that there is contradiction in this case, your explanation is not valid.
This would be true if I had, infact, agreed that it is a contradiction. However, I said it was an apparent contradiction

All-powerful? This is a well-known fallacy, as can be illustrated by a number of logical paradoxes. For example: can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift? If he can create the stone, then he is not all-powerful since he cannot lift it. If he cannot create the stone, he is not all-powerful.
Sorry, the meaning of "all-powerful" was gone over long ago in the "Does God exsist" thread. I assumed that you would know what I meant. Anyway, Goughfather somed up the basic idea nicely.

Desmond
13-11-2006, 01:42 PM
Sorry, the meaning of "all-powerful" was gone over long ago in the "Does God exsist" thread.Good point. In fact, I think that most of this stuff has been gone through on that thread, so I'll not continue the discussion here.

EGOR
13-11-2006, 01:44 PM
Good point. In fact, I think that most of this stuff has been gone through on that thread, so I'll not continue the discussion here.
Ok.:D

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2006, 02:21 PM
Ok, let's hear it.

Again I'm not interested in rehashing the "Does God Exist?" thread.

EGOR
13-11-2006, 02:24 PM
Again I'm not interested in rehashing the "Does God Exist?" thread.
Well, you certainly didn't do it there.

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2006, 02:28 PM
Well, you certainly didn't do it there.

That may be your view but readers can judge for themselves.

EGOR
13-11-2006, 02:36 PM
That may be your view but readers can judge for themselves.
Now this is week, you may have put down some peoples concept of God effectively, but you cannot be seriouly saying you actually put down the concept of God the the "Does God exsist" thread. I'd go so far as to say you never even tried.

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2006, 03:46 PM
Now this is week, you may have put down some peoples concept of God effectively, but you cannot be seriouly saying you actually put down the concept of God the the "Does God exsist" thread. I'd go so far as to say you never even tried.

I certainly put down the concept of an all-powerful God on that thread, whether you agree with my challenge or not. The same challenge (to whether the sentence "God exists" can be meaningful given the empirical baggage carried by the concept of existence) applies to a very wide range of God concepts - essentially, any God with unlimited power to manipulate what its creations perceive. If you choose to believe in some God of the gaps that doesn't do that, and that probably does close to nothing except kickstart the universe for the benefit of those who adhere to simplistic concepts of causation and time, then I question whether calling such an entity "God" has any purpose.

antichrist
15-11-2006, 01:54 PM
A totally different situation, "turn the other cheak" is individual to individual, is not ment to apply unjust actions of a government.

A/C
Well why is not Isreal, that is a government, getting revenge against Germany for the Holocaust?

Egor
Not relivent.

A/C
If eye for eye is good enough for humans then why not for God - can he be hypocriticial?

Egor
I hope that I would not.

I would never want you in my team!

antichrist
15-11-2006, 01:56 PM
You not being able to think of another reason is not a strong argument.


Well can you think of a strong argument why he created Lucifer as he did?

zigzag
15-11-2006, 06:21 PM
Well can you think of a strong argument why he created Lucifer as he did?

Every soap opera needs its "villian" to keep the viewers interested.

Goughfather
15-11-2006, 08:03 PM
Just to contribute to the discussion, I might point out that not all Christians hold to the idea of a personified Satan.

(1) There is a common misperception that Satan is the snake who deceives Eve in the garden of Eden (whether or not this narrative is regarded as a historical event or simply an illustrative story is not relevant). However, this interpretation is not made clear in the actual narrative or affirmed as true at any place in the Bible. Rather, this interpretation was only given by the Early Church Fathers, some time after the apostolic era.

(2) That the snake in the Genesis narrative seems to be confirmed by the prevailing worldview at the time of authorship. The very strong monotheism of early Judaism does not seem compatible with the idea of a personal Satan. Rather, God is seen as responsible for all good and all evil.

(3) "Satan" does emerge in the Wisdom literature of Job, but it is far from clear that this a reference to a personified Satan. The Hebrew term interpreted as this figure is simply the generic reference "accuser".

(4) The role played by "Satan" in Job seems incompatible with a contemporary understanding of Satan attested to by most Christians. This Satan simply plays the role of "devil's advocate" and need not be regarded as antagonistic towards God.

(5) Satan emerged as a full-blown figure of evil in the apocalyptic literature written between the Old and New Testaments, or in the four hundred years leading up to the Birth of Christ. This Satan seems to be much more the product of Hellenistic thought than of Jewish thinking.

EGOR
27-11-2006, 11:14 AM
I certainly put down the concept of an all-powerful God on that thread, whether you agree with my challenge or not. The same challenge (to whether the sentence "God exists" can be meaningful given the empirical baggage carried by the concept of existence) applies to a very wide range of God concepts - essentially, any God with unlimited power to manipulate what its creations perceive. If you choose to believe in some God of the gaps that doesn't do that, and that probably does close to nothing except kickstart the universe for the benefit of those who adhere to simplistic concepts of causation and time, then I question whether calling such an entity "God" has any purpose.
It's not whether I agree with it that was the issue, just whether you've ever put forward a case for Athesism. Which you have, so I retrack the statement. I've been slow to respond to this because I have been deciding (for purely personal reasons) whether to continue posting here (or on any chess forum) any more at all. I am going to continue posting, but I'm not really interested in getting into long, non chess relaited, fruitless debates. Therefor, I'm going to try and reframed from commenting on threads like this one.

antichrist
27-11-2006, 12:38 PM
.......... I am going to continue posting, but I'm not really interested in getting into long, non chess relaited, fruitless debates. Therefor, I'm going to try and reframed from commenting on threads like this one.

What do you mean fruitless, we have apples, a pair on the ground, grapes into wine

EGOR
27-11-2006, 12:41 PM
What do you mean fruitless, we have apples, a pair on the ground, grapes into wine
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Ian Murray
27-11-2006, 12:48 PM
To gauge mankind's significance on the cosmic scale, see http://paralleldivergence.com/2006/11/11/how-hubble-killed-god/

EGOR
27-11-2006, 01:45 PM
To gauge mankind's significance on the cosmic scale, see http://paralleldivergence.com/2006/11/11/how-hubble-killed-god/
Interesting.

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2006, 02:05 PM
Just to contribute to the discussion, I might point out that not all Christians hold to the idea of a personified Satan.

Curiously enough, not all Satanists do either.

EGOR
27-11-2006, 02:44 PM
Curiously enough, not all Satanists do either.
Most likely most don't.

antichrist
27-11-2006, 03:41 PM
I go along with that the papacy is the Anti-Christ as proclaimed by Martin Luther - that's good enough for me.

EGOR
28-11-2006, 08:41 AM
I go along with that the papacy is the Anti-Christ as proclaimed by Martin Luther - that's good enough for me.
that puts you in agreement with a lot of Christians I know.:D :whistle:

antichrist
28-11-2006, 09:07 AM
I returned to God but he was not home - doesn't exist mate!

EGOR
28-11-2006, 09:25 AM
I returned to God but he was not home - doesn't exist mate!
Who? Christians?

antichrist
28-11-2006, 01:17 PM
Who? Christians?

No God but there was a big pile of bullsh.t behind the door.

EGOR
29-11-2006, 05:20 AM
No God but there was a big pile of bullsh.t behind the door.
Which door was that?

George Xie
01-12-2006, 07:16 AM
No God but there was a big pile of bullsh.t behind the door.

(I apology for my English, if there are any spelling or grammar mistakes please let me know, then I can learn and improve myself, thank you.)

Dear Peter

Only when you become a “True Christian” you will test the salvation of God and the truth of Christ.

I’ll use “Position play” as an example for the Believers and Non-Believers:

“Position play” is the “spiritual eye” in Chess, only when you receive, believe and understood it, your “spiritual eye” in chess will opened, you will not move your pieces randomly or make such “one move trick”.

Lord Jesus is the “spiritual eye” for every human, only when you receive, believe and understood, your “spiritual eye” will opened, you will get all your answers in Christ himself.

antichrist
01-12-2006, 08:26 PM
I am sorry George, but I feel I am insulting my intelligence if I entertain religious thoughts, and I feel I am betraying myself because I could never believe anything like that. I don't even believe that Jesus existed. I wished that Christianity never existed. They replaced philosophy with theology, reason with superstition, science with miracles.

Much more interesting is why people believe and why the need to believe. That is the biggest question. Sigmund Freud wrote about five books on it, I strongly recommend that you familarise yourself with his writings.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2006, 08:54 PM
I wouldn't bother with Freud personally. He wasn't too flash at substantiation.

As for the analogy I can only suggest (not believing in either) that if God has all the secrets of positional play, then the devil has all the tactics. :owned:

antichrist
04-02-2007, 10:33 PM
http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=142741#post142741

Well Howard wouldn't mind being God.

Basil
04-02-2007, 10:39 PM
http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=142741#post142741

Well Howard wouldn't mind being God.

What do you mean 'wouldn't mind'? :eh:

Axiom
04-02-2007, 10:40 PM
http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=142741#post142741

Well Howard wouldn't mind being God. huh? .. i thought Howard WAS God!

four four two
06-02-2007, 07:27 PM
huh? .. i thought Howard WAS God!

According to this video,God is ...American.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyUFLv_i4tk

antichrist
06-02-2007, 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty
<sound=on>*kerplonk*<sound=off>

For those unfamiliar with the ker-plonk sound, that was antichrist being added permanently to my ignore list.

Biblical allusions spring to mind, such as me having been caught out casting pearls before swine.

GeorgeL
Thanks for the explanation Frosty. For a moment I thought that noise was all the innocent babies God slaughtered in Noah's flood

A/C
The highest number of abortions are those spontaneous ones brought on by God.

antichrist
27-11-2010, 06:11 AM
I have no problem with people believing in Jesus, Mohammed, Shiva etc. I just do not like it when religion is being "imposed" on others.

However, one thing i really like about the Bible is its 10 commandments. I guess they provide (if taken out of the religious context) pretty powerful moral guidance:hmm:

Overall, Bible, Tora and Koran are among my favorite books.


Mike, I challenge you to actually read the Bible cover to cover, I attempted under challenge and would find it easier to defeat an IM. Go on try...

Adamski
27-11-2010, 07:33 AM
Mike, I challenge you to actually read the Bible cover to cover, I attempted under challenge and would find it easier to defeat an IM. Go on try...It's not hard to read the Bible cover to cover. You just need a fair bit of time. But that is not the recommended way to read it. Most who do lose steam around about Leviticus. I would say read some new Testament interspersed with the Old and also you can get books which show you historical sequence in the OT so you can read things in some logical order.

Hats off to IM George for starting this thread and showing that he is a man of strong Christian faith.:clap:

antichrist
27-11-2010, 07:32 PM
It's not hard to read the Bible cover to cover. You just need a fair bit of time. But that is not the recommended way to read it. Most who do lose steam around about Leviticus. I would say read some new Testament interspersed with the Old and also you can get books which show you historical sequence in the OT so you can read things in some logical order.

Hats off to IM George for starting this thread and showing that he is a man of strong Christian faith.:clap:

Who has ever heard of reading a book like a bat out of hell. I got caught up in the bullshit about Moses living to about 1,000 years and having kids at about 700 years. I could not force myself to read any more rubbish.

George came out of it with his reputation in tatters and he realised it. He never came back for a second helping.

Spiny Norman
28-11-2010, 10:11 AM
Who I got caught up in the bullshit about Moses living to about 1,000 years and having kids at about 700 years.
Not sure what book you were reading then, but it clearly wasn't the Bible. Moses didn't live to anything like 700 years, and as best I can recall it doesn't record that he had kids either. :lol:

Rincewind
28-11-2010, 10:45 AM
Not sure what book you were reading then, but it clearly wasn't the Bible. Moses didn't live to anything like 700 years, and as best I can recall it doesn't record that he had kids either. :lol:

You right on the age 120 is the usual number bandied around which is long lived but not outrageous. However, Exodus 18:2 does mention Moses' wife Zipporah having two sons, Gershom and Eliezer. We assume they were Moses' unless you're suggesting he had a little outside help.

Spiny Norman
28-11-2010, 05:41 PM
Exodus 18:2 does mention Moses' wife Zipporah having two sons, Gershom and Eliezer.
I stand corrected.

antichrist
28-11-2010, 11:02 PM
It was Noah that lived to about 950 years, but I can't locate at what age he had children, 750 years old I think.

Rincewind
29-11-2010, 01:51 PM
It was Noah that lived to about 950 years, but I can't locate at what age he had children, 750 years old I think.

I believe it is recorded that Noah was around 500 when he had Shem and about 600 at the time of the flood. Age 750 was well after the flood in the narrative and I don't know of any children of Noah born after the flood.

antichrist
29-11-2010, 05:24 PM
It is not easy, for me anyway, to find out exactly what age he had children and how many. Getting to the point, what was Noah doing from age say 20 years to 500 that he did not have about 480 children. There was no Vatican roulette in those days. Was he a bit slow like some chess players? Orthodox Jews are known for having large families. Imagine Mrs Noah having children aged about 500 years - the kid would have one look at his old man and head back inwards again.

Bereaved
01-12-2010, 12:48 AM
I have read the Bible cover to cover


Take care and God Bless, Macavity

antichrist
01-12-2010, 12:51 AM
I have read the Bible cover to cover


Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Honestly, I could not force myself to waste time doing so, just stating fact. I could not believe that people were getting hung up on it. Shows how we are all wired differently - and I love Janis Joplin so what can I say

antichrist
02-12-2010, 09:51 AM
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images

AC
Here the Bible is admitting that there are other gods, so I wonder in this thread which god is meant?

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2010, 05:49 AM
Here the Bible is admitting that there are other gods, so I wonder in this thread which god is meant?
Of course: false gods, rather than the true One.

antichrist
04-12-2010, 06:45 AM
Of course: false gods, rather than the true One.

It does not state there that the other gods are false.

"that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images "

Why is God such a nasty jealous character, he sounds like Adoft Hitler. How can people (the whole Semitic races mine included) take on such primitive extremist garbage. The followers of such garbage have brainwashed about fifth of the world and trying to complete the job.

Return to God? What baloney. Return to John Lennon's Imagine song instead "imagine there is no god, no one to kill or die for" - now that sounds better.

I am available for counselling if ever you see a tiny flicker of light at the end of the tunnel.

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2010, 04:41 PM
I do wonder why the commandement is formulated as "thou shalt have no other gods before me" and not just something along the lines of "None of the other gods exist so worshipping them is a complete waste of time and just might make me a little bit cross and get you frizzled". Does the wording say something about a willingness of some people to believe that multiple deities might exist and then cherry-pick which ones to worship?

I know that some religious traditions recast the commandment to refer to "gods" more broadly, eg money as a god, but I wonder if that was really inherent in the original meaning.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2010, 04:46 PM
I do wonder why the commandement is formulated as "thou shalt have no other gods before me" and not just something along the lines of "None of the other gods exist so worshipping them is a complete waste of time and just might make me a little bit cross and get you frizzled". Does the wording say something about a willingness of some people to believe that multiple deities might exist and then cherry-pick which ones to worship?

Your version conveys less information per word.

Garrett
04-12-2010, 05:04 PM
I do wonder why the commandement is formulated as "thou shalt have no other gods before me" and not just something along the lines of "None of the other gods exist so worshipping them is a complete waste of time and just might make me a little bit cross and get you frizzled". Does the wording say something about a willingness of some people to believe that multiple deities might exist and then cherry-pick which ones to worship?

I know that some religious traditions recast the commandment to refer to "gods" more broadly, eg money as a god, but I wonder if that was really inherent in the original meaning.

yours is harder to chisel into a stone tablet.

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2010, 05:11 PM
Your version conveys less information per word.

How about "No other Gods exist. Don't worship them" then? Of course, because we are talking about English translations we have no idea what formulation would have been most concise in the original.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2010, 06:28 PM
How about "No other Gods exist. Don't worship them" then?
The last thing I want is to get involved in a theological dispute, so I'll leave interpretation to someone with better understanding. However, the important word is "before".

Of course, because we are talking about English translations we have no idea what formulation would have been most concise in the original.
Exactly.

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2010, 06:53 PM
However, the important word is "before".

Why is "before" important? After all presumably someone who is a Christian isn't supposed to worship or even believe in the existence of other gods at all, not even with second-fiddle status.

Rincewind
04-12-2010, 08:00 PM
Why is "before" important? After all presumably someone who is a Christian isn't supposed to worship or even believe in the existence of other gods at all, not even with second-fiddle status.

I guess Satan is supposed to be believed in. Not sure if you would give them small-g god status. He would seem to be immortal and have certain powers.

Also the magic contest between Moses and the Egyptians comes to mind. e.g.


And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. (Exodus 7:10-11).

I'm not sure what to make of that. Were the Egyptians channelling some supernatural power or what it just trickery?

antichrist
04-12-2010, 08:42 PM
I guess Satan is supposed to be believed in. Not sure if you would give them small-g god status. He would seem to be immortal and have certain powers.

Also the magic contest between Moses and the Egyptians comes to mind. e.g.


And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. (Exodus 7:10-11).

I'm not sure what to make of that. Were the Egyptians channelling some supernatural power or what it just trickery?

Brilliant RW, sort of my snake is bigger than yours - ha ha ha its sat nite

Oepty
04-12-2010, 11:28 PM
Why is "before" important? After all presumably someone who is a Christian isn't supposed to worship or even believe in the existence of other gods at all, not even with second-fiddle status.

It is the word gods which is important, not before. The hebrew word, elohim, can have a broader meaning than just god, its meaning is something like strong one. While it is translated as God or similar the vast majority of the time it is also translated as judge (ie ruler), great, mighty, angels and exceeding in the KJV. So as angels, for example, do exist according to the Bible then angels should not be put before God in importance.
Scott

Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2010, 09:53 AM
Why is "before" important? After all presumably someone who is a Christian isn't supposed to worship or even believe in the existence of other gods at all, not even with second-fiddle status.
I was wrong. Some translation have "except" instead, which probably better relays the meaning.
Ten commandments were given quite some time before Christianity, and it's actually second commandment.

BTW, when somebody asked me why I didn't believe in global warming I was quite tempted to cite The Second Commandment.

antichrist
05-12-2010, 05:01 PM
I was wrong. Some translation have "except" instead, which probably better relays the meaning.
Ten commandments were given quite some time before Christianity, and it's actually second commandment.

BTW, when somebody asked me why I didn't believe in global warming I was quite tempted to cite The Second Commandment.

So is Christianity hybrid or heretical Judaism? And which is correct?

antichrist
31-12-2010, 12:53 AM
I don’t wish following texts happens in our world:

“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rush, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God – having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.” (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

In what context is "rush" meant here?

antichrist
31-12-2010, 01:01 AM
A few surfers here have returned to god (died) with their board still roped to their leg - but I have not heard of any being buried or cremated with their board (wonder why not?) - doesn't God like them surfing nor does he want surfboards cluttering up Heaven?