Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Just a thought...

1…457910…16

Comments

  • #182
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    fitz0 wrote: »
    Tell me then, what is the basis for beliving in any sort of deity?

    Youd have to ask a believer that question


  • #183
    joseph brand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Its easy to take the piss out of anything anyone says though if your good enough at it

    Like what for instance? Give us an example please.

    Fairy tales are all well and good, especially for children with over-active imaginations. But when people try to use them to govern adults, well then, they deserve nothing but derision and objection.

    There was a talking snake, bear, puma, tiger, orangutan and vultures in 'Jungle Book'. There was also a message. We don't take it literally though. You're free to if you want to. Just keep it to yourself.

    And for 'heavens' sake, keep it out of the political discourse and education.


  • #184
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    whatsup? wrote: »
    How does the 10 commandments suggest God is jealous?
    The commandments don't just suggest that god is jealous, they outright state it in the second commandment (in the text surrounding it, not the shortened version you learn by heart in primary school). Hell it is even in stated in the first person as if it's god opinion that he is jealous.

    EDIT: And if you interpret the 10 commandments as referring to the ritual decalogue, as apposed to the ethical decalogue, (which you could certainly make a case for as the reference to the 10 commandments occurs right after the ritual decalogue), the ritual decalogue being the one that forbids you to boil a goat in its mother milk (I'm not joking), then it goes as far as claiming that his name is Jealous.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    What do you mean on whose authority? The basic tenant of Christianity is love one another, not watch out or you'll burn in hell if you don't do as I say. Why would you call God's Love sick when its anything but..God loves us even when we ignore him, kill, steal, worship other Gods etc he still loves us. How is that sick? Its a proper example of parental love.
    My (admittedly somewhat limited) understanding of Judaism is that it doesn't include the concept of heaven or hell. There is some sort of afterlife, but it doesn't really go into a lot of detail describing it. The concept of hell mostly comes from christianity, although most of the gritty details comes from Dante Alighieri's poem, Divine Comedy, and ware then adopted into the religion. Love one another, on the other hand, is just a variation on the golden rule, which is included in many religions (and much older ones) including judism: "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. —Leviticus". So from my prospective, christianity really expanded on the idea that god would forgive you for sinning, but also the idea that he would punish you for eternity if you didn't earn his forgiveness. Nothing sums up christianty better than those comparisons to an abusive boyfriend.


  • #185
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    Knasher wrote: »
    The commandments don't suggest that god is jealous, they outright state it in the second commandment (in the text surrounding it, not the shortened version you learn by heart in primary school). Hell it is even in stated in the first person as if it's god opinion that he is jealous.

    Exodus 20:4-5

    You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.


  • #186
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Like what for instance? Give us an example please.

    Ok, think of the most clever thought you ever had.

    Got it?

    Now, go to after hours and post it there.

    Wait two minutes...

    There's plenty of examples....


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Ok, think of the most clever thought you ever had.

    Got it?

    Now, go to after hours and post it there.

    Wait two minutes...

    There's plenty of examples....

    I don't see what this has to do with anything... Are you saying that the supposed word of god is no better than a random post on AH?


  • #188
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Ok, think of the most clever thought you ever had.

    Got it?

    Now, go to after hours and post it there.

    Wait two minutes...

    There's plenty of examples....
    This is the point where I'd normally post the jackie chan pic.


  • #189
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Improbable wrote: »
    I don't see what this has to do with anything... Are you saying that the supposed word of god is no better than a random post on AH?

    You asked how is it possible to take the piss out of anything and I gave you an example. I said feck all specifically about the word of god.


  • #190
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    You asked how is it possible to take the piss out of anything and I gave you an example. I said feck all specifically about the word of god.
    Again, you are presuming a document inspired by a perfect being would suffer the same difficulties as any of us. This ought not be the case, surely? Surely such a book would be free of the nonsense, inconsistencies, outdated, tribal, gah you get the point. It wouldn't be what it is.


  • #191
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    You asked how is it possible to take the piss out of anything and I gave you an example. I said feck all specifically about the word of god.

    I asked no such thing. At any rate, surely the word of god is held to a higher standard than anything else if it were truly the word of an omnipotent creator. The point is that the supposed word of god was created by man. There are logical fallacies, inconsistencies and contradictions all over the place, making it a very easy target to dispute.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Improbable wrote: »
    I asked no such thing. At any rate, surely the word of god is held to a higher standard than anything else if it were truly the word of an omnipotent creator. The point is that the supposed word of god was created by man. There are logical fallacies, inconsistencies and contradictions all over the place, making it a very easy target to dispute.

    Couldn't agree with you more


  • #193
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Couldn't agree with you more

    Have I misinterpreted your post that "you can take the piss out of anything"? It seemed like a defence of the bible.

    If it wasn't, then was your comment merely a statement of the fact that human beings have a great ability at mockery? If that is the case, I don't see what relevance it has to the discussion.

    If it was, then I would welcome a clarification as to your meaning if you still hold to it and yet agree with my statement.


  • #194
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Thank you Knasher and Improbable. I find it hard to believe you would have difficulty recognising the famous version of the 10 commandments whatsup. Look I don't want to dissect each line of your post as it's getting to that point where posts just get longer and longer.

    My core problem with your interpretation of the bible is one I meet regularly. The bible is evidence of god's existence, god is love even though the source you point to for his existence doesn't show that to be the case, therefore the bible is just being misunderstood. Where is the starting point for god is love given that the bible is the proof he exists and it shows more than just a loving side to a god. It's circular in the weirdest way.
    It's a filter being added somewhere in the circle made out of the golden rule because people desire someone good to be in control of fixing the unfairness of life I guess. Call it Karma, cosmic justice, whatever. They want someone to even out the wrongs they have no power to right.


  • #195
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Thank you Knasher and Improbable. I find it hard to believe you would have difficulty recognising the famous version of the 10 commandments whatsup. Look I don't want to dissect each line of your post as it's getting to that point where posts just get longer and longer.

    My core problem with your interpretation of the bible is one I meet regularly. The bible is evidence of god's existence, god is love even though the source you point to for his existence doesn't show that to be the case, therefore the bible is just being misunderstood. Where is the starting point for god is love given that the bible is the proof he exists and it shows more than just a loving side to a god. It's circular in the weirdest way.
    It's a filter being added somewhere in the circle made out of the golden rule because people desire someone good to be in control of fixing the unfairness of life I guess. Call it Karma, cosmic justice, whatever. They want someone to even out the wrongs they have no power to right.

    Debate is tiresome:P
    I understand perfectly how the God of the OT and the NT seem totally different but again I have to stress the importance of correct interpretation of the text. Speaking from a religious point of view to say God is anything but love is completely wrong to me, even if it seems otherwise at times. Christians see God as ultimately good, not jealous, vengeful spiteful or anything else. Regardless, Christ is the heart of our faith, not OT written Jewish expressions. The laws and acts were consistent with the conditions of the times, geared for cultural survival. For Catholics the Eucharist is the core of the faith, not written Jewish interpretations which are a mixture of laws customs and traditions.

    The whole basis of Catholicism is what happens during the Mass, that God gave himself to us so we could be saved, and its only a Good and loving God that is found there. We could debate the OT for hours but God for us today is nothing but Love.

    Also, you said the Bible is evidence for God's existence but there is no evidence suitable for the human mind to show God exists OR does not exist. It requires faith.


  • #196
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    whatsup? wrote: »
    .... but God for us today is nothing but Love.

    Also, you said the Bible is evidence for God's existence but there is no evidence suitable for the human mind to show God exists OR does not exist. It requires faith.

    Which means you've deviated from the original teachings.

    And faith is a lame excuse to believe in anything.
    I can have faith that there is indeed a teapot flying around the sun, and my faith will 'evolve' as technology improves to prove that there isn't e.g. the teapot is invisible.


  • #197
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    whatsup? wrote: »
    Debate is tiresome:P
    I understand perfectly how the God of the OT and the NT seem totally different but again I have to stress the importance of correct interpretation of the text. Speaking from a religious point of view to say God is anything but love is completely wrong to me, even if it seems otherwise at times.

    So in other words, your god seems evil at times, particularly in the old testament but not exclusively so, and so you choose to believe that the bad bits are simply incorrectly interpreted. What if you have it the wrong way around? What if god is actually evil and the bits that say he is good is misinterpreted. The only reason you don't think that is because YOU want to believe that's not the case. To rule out personal bias, there is no choice but to examine ALL the presented data.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    Christians see God as ultimately good, not jealous, vengeful spiteful or anything else. Regardless, Christ is the heart of our faith, not OT written Jewish expressions. The laws and acts were consistent with the conditions of the times, geared for cultural survival. For Catholics the Eucharist is the core of the faith, not written Jewish interpretations which are a mixture of laws customs and traditions.

    The whole basis of Catholicism is what happens during the Mass, that God gave himself to us so we could be saved, and its only a Good and loving God that is found there. We could debate the OT for hours but God for us today is nothing but Love.

    Matthew 5:17 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    It seems that he approves of the old testament does it not? So if you follow his teachings and his words, would it not make sense to you to follow the laws of the old testament as well as he instructs you to?

    Is it not the case that the ENTIRE reason for Jesus' existence the fact that Adam and Eve disobeyed god in the OT? So how do you dismiss the OT as being irrelevant and yet still retain Jesus when the two are inexorably bound together?

    whatsup? wrote: »
    Also, you said the Bible is evidence for God's existence but there is no evidence suitable for the human mind to show God exists OR does not exist. It requires faith.

    Sure there is. There's plenty. He could simultaneously speak into all of our minds. That'd be pretty neat evidence and it would be perfectly understandable by our brains. He could perform miracles in a repeated fashion to groups of scientists. There's plenty of stuff that would be considered decent evidence. But no. We also know that he's not against evidence because apparently, Jesus performed miracles all the time. Yes, it requires faith, but the only reason that is so is because there is no evidence, not because god is incapable of providing it.


  • #198
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Kivaro wrote: »
    Which means you've deviated from the original teachings.

    And faith is a lame excuse to believe in anything.
    I can have faith that there is indeed a teapot flying around the sun, and my faith will 'evolve' as technology improves to prove that there isn't e.g. the teapot is invisible.

    The OT is not where Catholics base their beliefs in rather the birth of Christ, crucifixion and Resurrection.

    And how have i deviated from the original teaching? To say we have moved from the perceived vengeful God (which i assume is what you mean by the original teaching?) found in the Jewish OT texts, to a Loving God today is a good thing.

    Also faith is a whole different area. Faith cannot be oppressed by reason. we can reason and therefore establish that there in no "flying teapot" around the sun but nothing can show there is no God (or vice verse). Faith concerns questions which can not be settled with evidence (unlike your tea pot analogy or the elephant in the shed as someone else had posted)...you either have it or not I suppose.


  • #199
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Ah the sacrifice! Now this I could talk about for hours :) God created man and woman (adam and eve) including how they acted, their desires, their reasoning etc. Then he decided to test them with the tree of knowledge. They failed but that was inevitable given the creation they were made into by the same person who tested them. Then our punishment was set out by the same god, a punishment extremely unfair, one where everyone was responsible for the actions of 2 people who were doomed from the start. Then god came to earth in the form of his "son" and sacrificed himself to free us from the punishment he doomed us with from our beginning and even then his sacrifice was one where he knew that after death he would continue to exist in heaven for eternity. His sacrifice (a few days of torture) seems minimal in comparison to his guaranteed eternity of perfect being. Aside from the whole question as to why he needed to sacrifice himself to himself to forgive us in the first place. If that's what Catholicism is built on then I dunno o_O


  • #200
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Improbable wrote: »
    So in other words, your god seems evil at times, particularly in the old testament but not exclusively so, and so you choose to believe that the bad bits are simply incorrectly interpreted. What if you have it the wrong way around? What if god is actually evil and the bits that say he is good is misinterpreted.

    Exactly, the "bad bits" are incorrect interpretations of a Loving God. The OT is A mixture of Jewish laws and customs and should be read in that context, not as a guide to how we should conduct ourselves today.
    And saying that we have interpreted an evil God a Loving God is daft really. Jesus came to reveal God, our faith is based on him, not the OT texts. He revealed a God of compassion so we haven't interpreted it wrong.

    Improbable wrote: »
    Matthew 5:17 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    It seems that he approves of the old testament does it not? So if you follow his teachings and his words, would it not make sense to you to follow the laws of the old testament as well as he instructs you to?

    Yes he does approve of the OT but Jesus came to fulfill the OT text and he did so by teaching about the Loving God. All the OT interpretations are therefore set right by this.
    The faith is based on the message of Christ. you ask should we follow the whole laws of the OT as he instructs you, well Jesus fulfilled these old laws with a God of Love so if we truly follow them then we do so by following a loving God.
    Improbable wrote: »
    Is it not the case that the ENTIRE reason for Jesus' existence the fact that Adam and Eve disobeyed god in the OT? So how do you dismiss the OT as being irrelevant and yet still retain Jesus when the two are inexorably bound together?

    I haven't dismissed the OT but you cant look at it without examining the NT in which Jesus comes to correct the peoples view of God. And the reason for Jesus's coming was to preach the Love of God on which we base the faith, not Jewish interpretations as are found in the old testament.


  • #201
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whatsup? wrote: »
    Exactly, the "bad bits" are incorrect interpretations of a Loving God. The OT is A mixture of Jewish laws and customs and should be read in that context, not as a guide to how we should conduct ourselves today.
    And saying that we have interpreted an evil God a Loving God is daft really. Jesus came to reveal God, our faith is based on him, not the OT texts. He revealed a God of compassion so we haven't interpreted it wrong.


    Yes he does approve of the OT but Jesus came to fulfill the OT text and he did so by teaching about the Loving God. All the OT interpretations are therefore set right by this.
    The faith is based on the message of Christ. you ask should we follow the whole laws of the OT as he instructs you, well Jesus fulfilled these old laws with a God of Love so if we truly follow them then we do so by following a loving God.


    I haven't dismissed the OT but you cant look at it without examining the NT in which Jesus comes to correct the peoples view of God. And the reason for Jesus's coming was to preach the Love of God on which we base the faith, not Jewish interpretations as are found in the old testament.
    So in the old testament when God directly killed Egyptian children and ordered his soldiers to slaughter women and children in a city, were these made up stories or are they documenting actual events?

    If they are made up, how do you know that they are made up? How do you know the bits you do like aren't equally made up?

    But if they are actual events, how do you reconcile those and other events with your claims that God is loving?


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    King Mob wrote: »
    So in the old testament when God directly killed Egyptian children and ordered his soldiers to slaughter women and children in a city, were these made up stories or are they documenting actual events?

    If they are made up, how do you know that they are made up? How do you know the bits you do like aren't equally made up?

    But if they are actual events, how do you reconcile those and other events with your claims that God is loving?

    Wasn't it King Herod who killed the Egyptian children in the hope of removing the infant Moses? And God saved Moses by telling his family to send him down the river Nile in a basket.
    Regardless any OT texts which preach about an evil God are wrong..and are accepted as Christians as wrong. The faith is based on Jesus and his teachings, he corrected all other interpretations.

    And you ask if they really happened, well the answer the answer is probably no. Although it is accepted by historians that Herod was a real person (including the one we see at Christ's death). The figures in the Bible such as Moses, Abrahem etc did really live and pop up in other religions too, (this is accepted by scholars) but when we come to discussing Noah and the flood or Adam and Eve then its generally accepted they are not factual events, especially the Adam and Eve tale.


  • #203
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    whatsup? wrote: »
    Wasn't it King Herod who killed the Egyptian children in the hope of removing the infant Moses? And God saved Moses by telling his family to send him down the river Nile in a basket.
    Regardless any OT texts which preach about an evil God are wrong..and are accepted as Christians as wrong. The faith is based on Jesus and his teachings, he corrected all other interpretations.

    And you ask if they really happened, well the answer the answer is probably no. Although it is accepted by historians that Herod was a real person (including the one we see at Christ's death). The figures in the Bible such as Moses, Abrahem etc did really live and pop up in other religions too, (this is accepted by scholars) but when we come to discussing Noah and the flood or Adam and Eve then its generally accepted they are not factual events, especially the Adam and Eve tale.

    Woah wait, if the Adam and Eve "tale" is false what the hell did mankind get punished for in the first place? I was never told in school that was just a story. The whole thing is built on it surely.


  • #204
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    whatsup? wrote: »
    Exactly, the "bad bits" are incorrect interpretations of a Loving God. The OT is A mixture of Jewish laws and customs and should be read in that context, not as a guide to how we should conduct ourselves today.
    And saying that we have interpreted an evil God a Loving God is daft really. Jesus came to reveal God, our faith is based on him, not the OT texts. He revealed a God of compassion so we haven't interpreted it wrong.

    So just because it doesn't fit your personal view it's daft. I see. So you've decided to not remove the personal bias on what you think god should be from the equation. And of course, that personal bias is all that is needed in order for your view to be the correct one.

    whatsup? wrote: »
    Yes he does approve of the OT but Jesus came to fulfill the OT text and he did so by teaching about the Loving God. All the OT interpretations are therefore set right by this.
    The faith is based on the message of Christ. you ask should we follow the whole laws of the OT as he instructs you, well Jesus fulfilled these old laws with a God of Love so if we truly follow them then we do so by following a loving God.

    Matthew 15:3-4

    But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

    Matthew 24:50-51

    The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Mark 6:10-11

    And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

    Corinthians 3:17

    If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.


    Yes, such evidence of love right there...

    whatsup? wrote: »
    I haven't dismissed the OT but you cant look at it without examining the NT in which Jesus comes to correct the peoples view of God. And the reason for Jesus's coming was to preach the Love of God on which we base the faith, not Jewish interpretations as are found in the old testament.

    But you HAVE to believe in the story of Adam and Eve. Their acts are the basis of original sin are they not? And isn't the appearance of Jesus required because god wanted to create a new covenant with man that would allow future generations from Adam and Eve to not be destined to go to hell? In short, god sent his only son down to earth to be slaughtered so he could excuse people from something that he himself condemned them to for something they did not do. Could he not just have forgiven them? How about not blaming someone for something that their great great great great great great grandparents did?

    And please don't just say "that's the old testament". Without that, there would be no reason for Jesus' existence at all. You can quote "love of god" over and over again but it doesn't really mean anything and it doesn't override the fact that the bible is a terrible place to look for morals and love. Both the old and new testament.


  • #205
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Woah wait, if the Adam and Eve "tale" is false what the hell did mankind get punished for in the first place? I was never told in school that was just a story. The whole thing is built on it surely.

    Adam and Eve connects God to man and exalts him above the other creatures of the earth. God made Adam "in his likeness" and gave him the earth to enjoy. Did it actually happen? no. but the story it tells is real, God did created us out of Love and created the World for all his creatures. The tale also establishes a relationship between God and Mankind and the rest of creation that otherwise wouldn't have existed.

    And mankind was never punished. The concept of original sin is that we are all born with the capacity to do terrible evil and go against Gods Plan. Jesus Came to save us from this sin and preach about the love of God. Adam and eve sinned, so therefore we do too. They are more or less a metaphor for our relationship with God.


  • #206
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whatsup? wrote: »
    Wasn't it King Herod who killed the Egyptian children in the hope of removing the infant Moses? And God saved Moses by telling his family to send him down the river Nile in a basket.
    No. I was referring to the first born Egyptians he directly killed in Exodus and the orders he gave to Saul in Samuel to slaughter the Amalekites, specifically including women and children.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    Regardless any OT texts which preach about an evil God are wrong..and are accepted as Christians as wrong. The faith is based on Jesus and his teachings, he corrected all other interpretations.
    And you ask if they really happened, well the answer the answer is probably no. Although it is accepted by historians that Herod was a real person (including the one we see at Christ's death). The figures in the Bible such as Moses, Abrahem etc did really live and pop up in other religions too, (this is accepted by scholars)
    Which is not really an answer to the questions I asked.

    Do you believe the two examples I gave above actually happened?
    Did God really kill the first born eygptians, yes or no?
    Did he really order people to kill women and children yes or no?

    If not, how do you specifically know that these stories are not true, beyond that God is evil in them? How do you know the stories you like are the real ones?

    But if you do believe those events actually happened, please explain how they work with a good or just god.
    but when we come to discussing Noah and the flood or Adam and Eve then its generally accepted they are not factual events, especially the Adam and Eve tale.
    So then if Adam and Eve never happened, cause the story is laughably fake, why does God have to go through all of his convoluted nonsense about sacrificing his son to himself which you claim is the entire point?


  • #207
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    King Mob wrote: »
    Do you believe the two examples I gave above actually happened?
    Did God really kill the first born eygptians, yes or no?
    Did he really order people to kill women and children yes or no?

    If not, how do you specifically know that these stories are not true, beyond that God is evil in them? How do you know the stories you like are the real ones?
    No i don't believe that God killed anyone, or ordered the deaths of women and children. Why? Because it flies completely in the face of what Jesus preached about and it is his message on which the catholic Church is built...not the OT stories. Again my faith is rooted in Jesus and the loving God he brings.

    What stories are you referring to when you say "the ones I like"?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So then if Adam and Eve never happened, cause the story is laughably fake, why does God have to go through all of his convoluted nonsense about sacrificing his son to himself which you claim is the entire point?
    What convoluted nonsense? Jesus was sacrificed to save us. The OT stories such as Adam and Eve serve just one purpose, to show how much God Loved mankind.


  • #208
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whatsup? wrote: »
    No i don't believe that God killed anyone, or ordered the deaths of women and children. Why? Because it flies completely in the face of what Jesus preached about and it is his message on which the catholic Church is built...not the OT stories. Again my faith is rooted in Jesus and the loving God he brings.
    So then if they aren't true, and are clearly evil, why are they in the bible and given the exact same authority as the rest of the "word of God"?

    If these stories aren't true, why should we buy any of the others?
    whatsup? wrote: »
    What stories are you referring to when you say "the ones I like"?
    Whichever ones you don't disbelief because you aren't required to ignore them to keep your claim about god being good.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    What convoluted nonsense? Jesus was sacrificed to save us.
    From original sin, which God gave us in a story that never actually happened...
    whatsup? wrote: »
    The OT stories such as Adam and Eve serve just one purpose, to show how much God Loved mankind.
    Except for the stories that involve God being evil...


  • #209
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then if they aren't true, and are clearly evil, why are they in the bible and given the exact same authority as the rest of the "word of God"?

    If these stories aren't true, why should we buy any of the others?

    They are in the Bible to portray Mankind's relationship with God, and if there existed a time when people taught God was evil then they deserve to be included in the Bible as any example of relationships with God deserve examination. The God of the OT is the Jewish version mixed up with laws and customs that governed society..Why aren't they given the same authority? Because Jesus came to fulfill the scriptures and thereofore we have the God of today. Everything in the OT is therefore just leading up to Christs Coming.

    Again faith is based on Jesus and the Eucharist (which is an act of Love) not Jewish interpretations as are found in the OT.

    you ask if we ignore the "evil God" as wrong interpretation then why not ignore the Loving God too? Because Jesus preaches about a loving God in the Gospels. The Church is based on Jesus.


  • #210
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    Do you have anything to say about the quotes I showed from the NT here?


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whatsup? wrote: »

    They are in the Bible to portray Mankind's relationship with God, and if there existed a time when people taught God was evil then they deserve to be included in the Bible as any example of relationships with God deserve examination. The God of the OT is the Jewish version mixed up with laws and customs that governed society..Why aren't they given the same authority? Because Jesus came to fulfill the scriptures and thereofore we have the God of today. Everything in the OT is therefore just leading up to Christs Coming.
    And nothing in the bible at all supports this nonsense idea.
    No where does it ever say that parts of the old testament aren't real, or shouldn't be taken as true, or that it's a "history of wrong interpretations".
    Not even the Catholic Church claims this.

    Everything in the bible and the church says that the entirety of the bible is true, even the bits where god is being clearly evil. They just try to justify the evil parts rather than ignore them as you do.

    If you can just decide which bits are real and which are not based totally on your own aesthetic choices, the entire thing is rendered totally pointless.


Advertisement