Sorry, I must have over-reacted about the comeback, I'm very, very careful to avoid getting involved in flamewars, I had too much of it in the past.
First off, I was making quick replies to every post that I found worth replying after my last post, but to accuse me that it is not based on genuine knowledge of the bible? Well, you're right, depending whether you are referring to pre-apologetics or post-apologetics interpretation, the very fact that you claim to know nothing about afterlife, yet still manage to make absolute statements about afterlife shows how you like to bend bible to your will. The very fact that you mention that there is a way to 'misinterpret' the bible.
If god exist, a loving, caring god, then I can assure you that it would despise the idea of abrahamic religions.
>I have rationalised almost everything I have said with quotes from the Bible. My teaching is the VERY OPPOSITE of cherry picking.
Let's pay attention to the good parts and ignore the bad parts. At least that's how I view it, everyone likes to speak how GOOD the bible is, they always pull out quotes they like most, but ignore the bad ones.
It's funny how you quote Corinthians reasonable, yet clearly Paul mentions that god had some sort of problem with women, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak” 1 Corinthians 14:34
“I praise you for being faithful in remembering me. I also praise you for staying true to all my teachings, just as I gave them to you. Now I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ. The head of the woman is the man. And the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame on his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered brings shame on her head. It is just as if her head were shaved. What if a woman does not cover her head? She should have her hair cut off. But it is shameful for her to cut her hair or shave it off. So she should cover her head. A man should not cover his head. He is the likeness and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. 8 The man did not come from the woman. The woman came from the man. Also, the man was not created for the woman. The woman was created for the man. 10 That's why a woman should have her head covered. It shows that she is under authority. She should also cover her head because of the angels. “ Yep, definitely not sexist at all.
"If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?" 1 Corinthians 6:1-2
Wait, wasn't the God the only one allowed to judge?
>Contrary to popular belief the first and second testaments of the bible do not contradict each other, rather, the new testament builds on the old.
The two testaments don't only contradict each other, they also contradict themselves.
>Firstly, how can you accuse me of not deriving my moral compass from the bible when I back it up with quotes?
Maybe you did, I don't know, I'll have to admit that I was generalizing here, most people before they read the bible have already decided what they will accept and what not, then it's just all about finding verses that wrap their ideas in the nicest wraps.
>Now on what grounds do you say atheistic morals are not corrupted? What bases? What evidence?
Because atheism has no morals. It is an amoral state of belief, it has no rules, it has no foundations, you cannot kill in the name of atheism to the same extent as you cannot kill in the name of apathetism.
>they are the fault of people misinterpreting God
How do you know they're the ones misinterpreting the bible? Has the god personally spoken to you anymore he did to them? Do you have some sort of ultimate knowledge above all else that you know that not only your interpretation is the correct one, but also your god is the right one?
>Cherry picking? Then tell me what I have left out! Your argumental technique is appalling and you do nothing to back up your claims, so they are baseless and worthless.
I had to google that quote - turns out its from Hitler. I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.
I think I will cover it soon enough, also, one good quote doesn't justify the evil.
>You sir are living in a dream world. A baboon will easily pull the head off a baby baboon that has angered it.
A large number of animals do eat their kind.
Animals do steal. Have you never watched nature programs? Birds steal from each others nests frequently. Most of the time the reasons animals don't steal is because they don't have POSSESSIONS. I would have thought that was obvious.
Animals care about each other more often than humans do? Of the animal kingdom a certain percentage are "Social animals", ie they live in family groups. The rest don't care about each other at all, and if they invade each others' territory, they're swift to rise to fight.
Humans are social animals, and a larger proportion of people live in family units than animals do.
I was supposed to say that most "animals have morals, they do not kill", even though baboons do have some bloody practices, however, most animals will have SOME sort of morals, although it'd be lying to say it's true, because when I say most animals, I'm thinking of land mammals, if we were to compare the amount of land mammals to amount of fish, the numbers suddenly change. Anyway, maybe the most precise wording would be to say that humans aren't the only ones with morality?
>You are once more guilty as charged of making wild claims with no basis. I consider this statement ignorant and lazy.
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Or should I say, most of the OT, which the NT is based on.
Let's top that, as it was said already, no loving god, at least omnipotent, would allow for people to go to hell, no loving god would look down upon his creation, whatever this god is, is not loving, maybe your god, but not the biblical god.
>I honestly wish you bigots would do your research.
Again, why can you not give EVIDENCE of your claim that Jesus was not the first to resurrect? You are frustrating.
Firstly, I am familiar with Flavius, the only man to write about jesus AFTER jesus' so called death, have you checked when flavius was born? 37 AD.
I'm going to name one demigod, Dionysus.
>I disagree, sir. What idea would they be willing to die in the name of? A lie? Why die for a lie? Who would sacrifice themselves for something they knew wasn't true? To con and swindle everyone? But then you can't reap the benefits of a lie once you are dead.
Hmm? What lie? You're the one claiming that the so-called jesus was claimed to be the son of god, and even if they truly believed him to be the son of god, then let me point out that throughout history he wasn't the only man to be given this title, there are historical accounts of people proclaiming themselves gods or others proclaiming them gods.
>You cannot simply dismiss the bible as evidence.
Yes I can, you first have to prove the bible as a valid evidence for anything. Your religion is no exception to this rule.
>Much of the New Testament is a collection of letters that were sent, and historically confirmed in that, around the middle east and mediterranean at that time.
Irrelevant, just because it's old, doesn't mean it's true.
>And as I said, Paul writes that there were 500 witnesses, of which many are still alive at the time of writing, should the Corinthians wish to check. Don't you think if the Corinthians had checked and found the witnesses to deny the fact that it would have been struck from the bible?
Yet there are no records of these 500 witnesses, no records of their sightings beyond the Paul's letters.
I'm not the one making assumptions here.
>And don't start talking about flying spaghetti monsters,
I will, because your god and FSM is one and the same thing.
>because of the entirety of Christianity, which is built on reason and proof,
Why do you refuse to use your proof? And how come I can't see this so called reason?
>the creation is one of the very, very few things that we do actually have to trust in without evidence.
No we don't, that's just wilful ignorance.
>This doesn't undermine the rest of Christianity,
Actually, yes it does. Any belief that is entirely faith-based has no credit.
>it is merely a facet that relies on trust based on the validity of everything else, which I am willing to give after reasoned judgement.
Yet there's still no difference between olden religions, other religions and delusion, funny, aye?
>And yet before you were saying animals had higher morality than men. You are incoherent.
False, I claimed that some animals had higher morality in certain areas than humans, never did I claim that animals have overall superior morality.
>False. A logical conclusion from the original statement that God created everything. Wouldn't you agree?
No, you made an assumption based on assumption that morality is required that just because it's required, it had to be created by god. Still no more no less of an assumption as claiming that a monkey farted out morality, it's absurd. Also, collective fallacy.
>Christian morality is founded on love. Amongst living things in the universe this morality logically works out so that all can be as happy has possible - if everybody followed the morality to the letter, and loved their fellow man, and acted out of love and kindness for everybody, I put it to you that there wouldn't be strife and wars. There honestly wouldn't. Is that not logically compatible with how all living things have been created?
You claim that religion is founded on love, yet there's still so much stupidity in the bible, from old testament were god is portrayed as some homicidal maniac to the new testament where they try to soften the god based on a story of a person with no historical accountability regarding the claim that he was a god.
>Fulfill his egoism? You accuse God of a base, manly vice.
Yes, yes I am. I am accusing him of being no better than any other god that came before him.
>The "egoist" commandments are commandments of love,
I don't see how "love me or you will writhe in pain (still sticking to biblical version of hell) is a commandment of love.
>although it is easy for people like you to misinterpret that.
The question here is, who's the one misinterpreting the bible? Me for sticking to what it says in the bible or you sugar coating it?
>Think of it, logically. God created his people. God loves his people. And yet, if they start to make their own false religions to false deities, and start making up their own moralities, and rituals,
Hypocrisy much? How dare you accuse other deities being false on such fallacious premises as "I feel my god is right", the reason why there aren't any theist A vs theist B debates is because they would end in stalemate.
>he won't be able to look after them.
So far goes his omnipotence, eh?
>So does it not make sense that he would command them to remain loyal to him?
Yes, because a sensible god wouldn't rely on blind faith.
>You are simply wrong. Child molestation does appear in the ten commandments, even if it wasn't spelt out word for word for simple people like you. The phrase "To commit adultery" in the modern sense means merely to cheat on one's wife.
So, as long as you marry the child, you can have sex with it? Sounds reasonable to me.
>Well, in the bible, one should be monogamous, and also one should not have sex before marriage. Therefore to molest a child is cheating in the sense that that child is clearly not going to be your wife,
Did god condemn marrying children?
>Also you make the mistake to assume that the ten commandments are the only commandments in the bible. I am beginning to wonder upon what grounds you base this spouting of mis-informed prejudice.
Read Leviticus 18.
I didn't assume that the 10 commandments are the only commandments in the bible, I just wasn't expected you to refer to the ridiculous 613 commandments.
Leviticus 20:13 (wow, what a loving deity), or my favourite, 4:6 (he was one blood-thirsty god, wasn't he?), 19:26 is neat too, according to the bible magic is real, heh. I don't see a reason why such ridiculous text I should take seriously.
>You have not read what I said about what heaven and hell is. Therefore these comments are irrelevant, misinformed, and damaging to you.
Not really, I'm just sticking to the biblical hell, since if anything you said is true, then certainly I will enjoy my time in 'hell'. Your interpretation is your own, it's no more valid than another interpretation that earth is hell and after death, if we were bad, we are reborn to try again.
>You really have not read your bible?
I referred to a different interpretation, one interpretation is that he claims that one is more important than another, another one is that they both are equally important, because otherwise it's pointless to name both commandments when a person asked for the most important
So, according to you, what is more important than being a good person? Blindly following god? Sounds reasonable.
>God's love does not mean that he restrains from righteous anger,
And this is where our moralities split, I believe that under no circumstances is a child allowed to be killed, you claim that if a child as much as curses their parents is excusable to be killed, that's why I claimed to have superior morality to god.
>Imagine if you loved someone with all your heart, and they kept telling you you were worthless and unimportant. Wouldn't you get angry at them? Wouldn't you say it would be a fool who did nothing about it?
Even if they hurt me, I wouldn't hurt them, I wouldn't hit them, curse them, speak badly of them, because that is love, I still would care about their well-being even if they didn't care about mine, if I had a child that cursed on me, a child that got mad at me, I wouldn't be angry, I would be sad, and what I wouldn't do is punish them simply because they don't love me, because that is not an act of love, that is an act of hate.
>What, did they not deserve their fate?
You're a cruel person. No one, not one person deserves to die simply because I don't like them, his actions were no better than hitler's, no, they were exactly the same, purifying the world.
>God gave many warnings before this.
That is not an excuse! That does not excuse a god to simply kill people just because someone was born here and not over there! That is the epitome of evil, one that has infinite power, yet has to refer to such vile actions, one that is supposed to be benevolent, yet manages to be so cruel, one that is supposed to be omniscient, yet is so stupid, that book isn't a book of god, it is a book of a mad man.
>Why not according to Jesus? And again, it is your own lack of love for God that excludes you from his heaven. The torture is the exclusion itself, for which the man is guilty.
Ignore that, it was based on the alternate interpretation to what jesus meant by greatest commandment.
>I left out a comma. I meant to say, "For the Christian, morality comes from God". Anyway ... what? I did explain how it is not an arbitrary set of rules, and we agreed that it is founded on love.
Comma made a helluva difference.
>Again, see my opinion of disney lovey-dovey idiocy.
What I meant is that some argue that morality is based on the emotion of compassion, others that it's based on the need of stable society, so it's debatable what morality was founded on.
>I'm delighted you have a favourite word, but "Lies" actually means wilfully false. Anyway your point here is merely one of semantics.
I tried to think of polite synonym for 'bullshit', funnily you have mentioned semantics in the same sentence, because based on context and the structure of this short, one worded sentence, you should've and probably did realise that I didn't mean it in a "You're lying" way. Also, I won't disagree, it is based on semantics simply because they mattered.
>THIS is not lies. This is historical and cultural. In your haste to denounce God you are ignoring recent history that has nothing to do with whether or not you actually believe in God. See monogamy, for example - very prevalent in the West, and a cornerstone of Christianity, and yet in other regions of the world it is not so important.
I disagree. I am not going to go into details how sympathy and empathy are intrinsic abilities and how christianity just spoke of something that should be obvious to most human beings or how morality predates your book and how jesus didn't even bother to question slavery.
>It is one of the few things that I have to trust God in without any proof, because it is logically impossible to see any proof.
>"one of the few things"? Does that mean you have any proof for any part of your belief?
>You are so quick to jump on the slightest thing! I cannot see proof of how God created the world (incidentally I am not a creationist, I support evolution, which I reconcile with God), and I cannot see heaven. But I can reason about them.
So, you do not have any proof for any part of your belief? (Before you shout "bible", let me remind you that you have to first prove that it is a valid proof.)
How come that your so-called logic I find very illogical then? Or on the par with any other religious logic?
>But, if your parents tell you when you small that after school comes university, it is fair to trust them.
>Or college. Or apprenticeship. Or straight to work, because some people can be satisfied with simple life and do not like the idea of constant stress. Your statement is false.
>Again you have resorted to semantics. Petty.
Not really, you were the one that claimed an absolute choice, as if university was some sort of heaven, yet completely ignored every other possibility, such as dying of a car crash soon after school finishes. You have made no worse no better assumption in your university example than with heaven, chosen one possibility among infinite others, except that in this example university is very likely compared to heaven.
>They were right in everything they told you about school, so why should you not trust them about university?
>Because they weren't? Unless you mean some very specific family.
>Is it not obvious that I was referring to a specific example? Forgive me for not choosing an example that applies to absolutely everyone in the world ever. Again you are jumping on semantics, which is childish.
Yes, you did make it obvious that you were referring to my parents, it's not my fault that without the principle of charity your argument didn't make sense.
>So I will admit that I can't make any definite statements about the afterlife.
>No. I won't list here what I have spent goodness knows how many words above explaining.
That you can't prove anything and rely on faith?
>I believe less in a fiery hellish furnace and more in exclusion from God.
>Heaven is simply the state of being in God's presence, being with the father.
>and thus to be in its presence is total bliss - what is called "Heaven". Hell is the antithesis of that. Hell is to be excluded from God's love.
>So I will admit that I can't make any definite statements about the afterlife.
>You seem to know enough about afterlife to know that much.
>I said "I believe" at the beginning. You completely ignored my statement for the sake of your argument. Your technique is appalling.
So, you hope others will accept your wishful thinking as ultimately true simply because you like your wishful thinking?
>The power of God's love is indescribable,
>Then mine has to be infinitely times larger.
>Have you sacrificed yourself in the most painful possible way, to death, for someone you loved? I didn't think so.
The very fact that you assume that jesus' sacrifice was 'the most painful way' is just ridiculous. And the very fact that a sacrifice to yourself in order to forgive someone a sin that I have bestowed upon them is love is hilarious. "Hey, tom! Do you remember the time I have caught you masturbating? Well, I have sacrificed this here video game to cleanse you of your sin, now bow to me! You now have to love me and worship me!" Again, egoistical much? Give me infinite power and I sure will send a copy of myself to be sacrificed.
>This bit is important: There is no good and bad of people.
>Not what your bible says again.
>No, no, no! You presume that just because the bible does not say in the exact words "There is no good and bad of people" that it is not so. Or perhaps you think the US constitution should not apply to crimes committed on helicopters because it doesn't have the word helicopter in it.
No, what I presume is that by "wicked" people, the bible refers to bad people.
>This is one of the main reasons for misconceptions about heaven and hell.
>Ah, so you know what afterlife is like?
>We cannot say unequivocably what the afterlife is like, because we have not seen it, but we can interpret what it is like from the Bible, and thus have what we consider correct or false interpretations.
... Matthew 13:50, Mark 9:48, Revelation 20:15, why is it that all biblical descriptions are consistent, yet yours is so different that I'd presumed you found some secret gospel no one heard of? And how do you interpret it otherwise without being wilfully ignorant or delusional?
>The act of sin is a rebellion from God. When a person sins, we decide, either consciously or subconsciously,
>Or we're born in the wrong country.
>This is the purpose of spreading the gospel around the world.
So... you do agree with me that muslims are going to hell simply because they were born in muslim country? In other words, god fucked up their chances for heaven the moment they were born?
>that God is not important enough for us to follow his commands.
>Which god again?
>I'm not sure what you mean but honestly you're probably jumping on semantics again so if you don't mind I won't check.
No, it was a direct attack on your god with a purpose of saying that "Your interpretation of god is no better in my opinion to any other interpretation of god"
>All rebellion from God is absolutely unforgiveable.
>Definition of tyrant anyone?
>No, definition of authoritarianism if you really want to get political. Tyranny is abused authoritarianism. Who taught you politics?
Speaking of semantics much? You should've known by now that I view god as a cruel oppressor, combine it with authoritarianism and you get tyranny.
>There are no degrees of rebellion. Every person sins, therefore every person is equally guilty in the eyes of God of rebellion from him.
>Wow, so you know how god thinks now? Didn't you just say that you had no idea how god judges people? How can you know that? And way to go with benevolence!
>No, I know what Jesus has taught us, and also I have read the bible, in the old and new testament. You appear to be as guilty of cherry picking as you first accused me, only picking out the bits that you could dispute.
You KNOW what jesus has taught us? There is no room for interpretation, because you know what the bible says?
>I did not say I had no idea. You are twisting my words, which is very bad technique and shows a lack of strength in your own argument. I said that I cannot have seen it myself and therefore cannot speak with 100% certainty. This is not the same as saying I have no idea. Or can you not understand the difference?
Yes you did, you said you don't know what it all is, but you believed, in order to know something, you need to have proof for it, you have claimed to have no proof, therefore no knowledge, not only that, but also the very definition of faith is direct opposite of proof.
>I have explained above the definitions of love, benevolence, and Disney love.
your personal definitions where cruelty is excusable.
>Everybody is equally guilty of the same crime - rebellion from God.
>What a benevolent character...
>Again, you crow gleefully when God does not live up to this character from some children's fantasy you have created. Before you return that accusation to me, I justify everything I say, whereas your argument is rife with wild and unjustified statements.
Irony much? Aren't you the one sugar coating what bible says? About hell and all, even though it says in black and white what hell is like?
>It is so terrible that there is no greater or lesser rebellion - the slightest rebellion is the worst - possible - thing.
>HAH! I like the way you contradict yourself.
>In what way have I contradicted myself? Or have you made a spectacular accusation about my wording in that sentence, which is an error of your misunderstanding me and not of my writing? Are you really jumping on my word choice, when you yourself have misread my words?
Ignore that, I completely don't remember what was on my mind back then, I must have made some sort of connection with one of your previous posts or something, but what it was, I truly can't remember, although according to what I have written, I must have thought it was rather obvious.
>So wait - if we are all guilty of the unforgiveable, then are we all damned?
>This bit is also important: We are not all damned. That is fairly obvious. But what is more important is to understand is that God does not simply turn a blind eye and forgive the unforgiveable.
>So you do know how god thinks and what awaits us in afterlife?
>I like all the proof you have for all of this. It's, erm, almost as much as my friend's proof that there were fairies beneath his garden.
>Is what I have said above not reasoned and logically drawn from what I have said previously?
No, no it wasn't.
>I did not think you would be so dimwitted and thick that I would have to reference every sentence with a piece of proof for simpletons to understand. Please keep up.
I surely will.
>This is the real, core reason why Jesus died on the cross. When Jesus died, he atoned for all of the sins of mankind.
>Like mayans used to sacrifice their people to satisfy their bloodthirsty god?
>No, because Jesus is God. He sacrificed himself out of love. My opinion of your intelligence is dwindling.
It's just going to get worse. Your god is omnipotent and omniscient. Your god couldn't skip sacrificing himself in order to forgive us. No difference to me.
>They all come in one big paragraph headed "Rebellion", and rebellion is totally unforgiveable, so the length of that paragraph does not actually matter. But then God screws up the sheet of paper and throws it away.
>Ah, you must be on special conditions with god, aye?
>I don't understand what you're saying.
Here I remember what I meant. You are claiming that you know exactly what god is like, unless I missed the point where you said that it's what you believe. (No, seriously, did I?)
>Am I forgiven of the unforgiveable? No. The reason that I am not punished is because Jesus has already borne the punishment. Jesus is the scapegoat. Jesus sacrificed himself, for me, for you, and for everybody, purely out of love. So when God allows "sinners" into heaven, it is not because he is stupid. It is because the price for the crime has already been paid in full.
>Totally like mayans. And what about me forgiving god? Because to me, the only true sinner above them all, is him. The most vile, corrupted and malicious being ever invented by men.
>Totally like the mayans in the way their own god sacrifices himself to them? Oh wait, it's not like that at all. You just made an idiotic and stupid connection.
Idiotic and stupid connection with the fact that mayans had to sacrifice people in order to not be punished? I don't think so. Especially given the fact that OT was rather fond of sacrifices (for some reason leviticus comes to my mind).
>Your arguments are wildly misinformed,
According to whom?
>bigoted, and prejudiced.
Sure, I'll take it.
>You do not back up half of your statements
Did you miss the part where I mentioned that I was answering in a rush? Some answers were there simply to voice my opinion of god. This post should be slightly nicer.
>with any kind of proof while accusing me of having none;
You claimed to have no proof, I don't even have to accuse you anything.
>and those sentences of mine which are not footnoted and referenced that you jump on so joyfully are fully backed up earlier in my own argument.
Which sentences exactly? I can't remember one.
>You have not proven that the morality of God is flawed;
No to you at least.
>merely that your interpretation is flawed, which I have proved is based on a misinterpretation of the bible.
Again, opinions. You don't know whether your definition is the correct one.
>I don't think I can write any more - I'm supposed to be revising for university exams at the moment, so I will have to leave myself at the mercy of you having the last word, unless I can't resist coming back. But I am confident that you will condemn yourself with as much ignorance as you displayed above.
At least here we're on the same boat here.
For some reason it appears to me as if you were losing your cool. Make sure not to explode.