Part 30 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity>>>MOD ALERT<<<

Doesn't that suggest that for his delight he created a being that was fallible, would cause him grief and whom he would have to condemn to hell, unless they obeyed him implicitly.

 

That too is conceivable, and at the same time it is also merely a speculation.... guesswork.

 

Uh, everybody acknowledges that fact.

I have no idea how you got from A to B there. They aren't the same species therefore they can't be related?

Oh really, Mitt, can you tell us about your ancestor that lived 10,000 years ago? How did he look? What was his name? WHAT? YOU DON'T KNOW? Well, then I guess you couldn't have had an ancestor... oh wait, that makes no sense.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no, that's wrong, and the most scientifically ignorant thing I've ever seen said. You're saying that all canines are the same species then? That bears and dogs are the same species? Because they belong to the same taxonomic family, genius. This is revolutionary! Bears and dogs are the SAME SPECIES GUYS!

There are no such things as the "human family" and "ape family" in science.

Of course they're made up words. ALL WORDS ARE MADE UP, SMART ONE. That doesn't mean that they don't have meaning.

"Diamonds? That's just some fancy shmancy word those scientists use for a shiny rock!"

Unbelievable.

 

Redirect: Redirecting those same questions to make them applicable to you.

 

I don't know how my ancestor looked or what he did either, Incorporeal.

 

You don't say!

Well then I'm happy for him but I like to think that my friend and myself are on the same level of intelligence as far as knowledge of our Holy Bible is concerned...is my opinion ok with you?

What led you to that conclusion? Why couldn't it be that the Muslim god is not the God of Abraham? After all didn't the Islamic faith that was founded by their founder Muhammad came many centuries later after Christianity?

The god of the Muslims should actually be referred to as being the god of Muhammad and not the God of Abraham.

 

Now that that admission is out in the open, it is simple to deduce that you also don't know that your ancestor was the byproduct of some genetic mutation which transitioned from some sort of an ape to man, as so many on this forum like to declare as an evolutionary fact. Fact being defined as something believed to be true or real. If you want to argue against that definition, then you would be arguing that the evolutionists don't believe what they are saying is true or real. 'believe' being defined as having 'confidence' or 'trust' in what the subject of the belief is.

 

Muslims believe that they are descended from Abraham thru Sara and his wife Keturah... Those sons are name in the OT.. Do you think that bloodline was added retroactively?

 

Ishmael comes from Abrahams concubine/wife, Hagar. As Sarai, as she was at the time, was his first wife her slave was given the Abraham as a wife and brought forth Ishmael. However he could have been claimed by Sarai. She didn't, as she came to hate Hagar and Ishmael. After being thrown out Hagar took an Egyptian wife for her son. It is suggested that Ishmaels sons intermarried with Keturahs sons in the future.

Has anyone noticed that as Jacob had 12 sons, so the Bible gives Ishmael 12 sons. So we have the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 tribes of Ishmael. And of course the 12 disciples of Jesus.

12 is the number of perfection, completeness. It appears nearly 200 times in the Bible. Particularly in multiples in Revelation.

 

I meant to write Hagar the Egyptian. I must be slipping.

Gen. 26 lists the six children that Keturah bore to Abraham: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah, to which the midrash applies the verse (Ps. 1:3): &#8220;and whatever he does prospers&#8221; (Gen. Rabbah 61:1).

Fairly mixed opinions here, but interesting.

http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/keturah-midrash-and-aggadah

 

I get those senior moments every day.

I must admit I try to keep to commenting on what the Bible says in the context of the day and time it was written.
I have looked at these extraneous books etc. Some of which are ridiculous, going against Tanakh teaching.
If you study carefully the story of Abraham and its background there are several problems with the story. Good job I don't actually believe Abraham existed.

 

I don't either, however... Muslims do seem to believe in Abraham and they think that he had sons with Hagar and Keturah.

Talk to me about Abraham........

 

We've been through all this before. Why do you keep repeating yourself. There are many people in this world who have no formal qualifications but due to study over many years have become leading authorities on their subject. I gave you a list.
I don't claim to be a leading authority but I have studied many years and learnt what and how to study. I'll stand my knowledge against theirs any day.

The truth is that if they actually studied the Tanakh, its background and Judaism they might get to the truth. They rely on what they have been taught by Christianity. There is no reference to Jesus as the Christian Messiah in the Tanakh. Unless, of course, you take things out of context. But as I said to someone else, by doing so I can prove virtually anything. A few days ago I gave several reasons why Jesus could not be the Messiah (Jewish) forecast by the Tanakh. Including the fact he was not of the line of David - according to the 2 lineages in the Bible - that were acceptable to God. Christians claim he was the Messiah - rejected by the Jews.

You may believe you're clever with words but as Mitt depends on Got Questions for his answers, you depend on the dictionary for your replies.

 

I have told you folks time after time that I am going through all the threads to respond to any posts that is coherent enough for me to respond to. At the moment I'm currently responding to posts from Part 8 pg. 49 and so whenever a post of yours comes up and is coherent enough in my view I will then respond to it. In the meantime you just have to be patient and wait for your turn to come up.

Also I'm not here to debate anything, you might want to debate but that was never the purpose of these threads of mine. I will respond to questions, comments but I'm not here to carry on the back and forth senseless debates where nothing really gets settled. You have your beliefs as an agnostic and I have mine as a Christian. Maybe you should read the very 1st post that I always post on these threads of mine at the start. They give you a hint as to my purpose here in regards to these threads I have generated up to now with number 30 being the current one.

 

So you really have no concrete idea why a God would create humans. I would agree. It's equally possible that a God that could create 100 billion stars with billions of planets would not have more of a special design for humans than it would for an ant colony. It's just part of the pattern of life that needs to feed on life to reproduce. We may just be worm food in God's plan. You don't know. Human ego has a hard time accepting this. Ergo, every culture throughout time has created Gods for comfort and a more secure sense of self.

 

I see. You are prepared to put forward Christian views - and when someone shows you where they are wrong you put it to one side - Hoping they will go away?. Do you expect people to sit back and allow you to propagate a religious message without debate? That was the practise of the church for 1500 years - not today.


Most of Your 30 threads have been little to do with Christianity. Mainly extraneous matters. Look back and you will see this.

I suggest you turn this thread over to someone who has the time and energy to keep up to date and debate. Most posters have left out of frustration. Some will never get an answer to their questions. I also notice that where you have an answer you manage to within a day or so. Where you don't it's put back for a convenient time.

This isn't a matter of beliefs. It's a matter of interpretation of ancient scriptures - not in todays terms, but in those of 2-3000 years ago. Something modern Christian scholars are gradually coming to terms with, but not you unfortunately.

 

I made no mention of being a 'leading authority' but rather was referencing whether or not you know how to "correctly interpret the 'Bible'".

Who was the Tanakh written by? Men? Who was the 'Bible' written by? Men? So why do you suggest that the Tanakh has a greater leaning toward 'truth' than the 'Bible'?

You must be mistaken. In the former post of mine to which you gave the response above, there was no mention of any dictionary. There was also no definitions mentioned. Do you have a problem with the dictionary or with someone using a dictionary?

 

And you don't have a desire for comfort and a more secure sense of self?

 

It you don't undertand what I have been saying over the last few posts I doubt you will understand this.

Mitt has been quoting the Tanakh to support Christian beliefs when, if he actually released his mind from Christian shackles and studied without bias, he would understand the Tanakh more fully. There is no reference to the Christian Messiah in the Tanakh. Personally I don't believe either, but I can distinguish the difference between Tanakh teaching and Christian misinterpretation.

Not if it's your penchant.

 

What I am seeing is your personal bias in favor of the Tanakh and your prejudice toward Christianity. Reasoning: You are placing a judgment on the Tanakh that shows a level of 'trust' greater than that of Christianity. "trust" being a 'belief'... ie.. you believe the Tanakh to be more truthful than Christianity, based on your interpretation or an interpretation that might have been given to you.

 

I am a comfortable agnostic. I am fine with the idea that I don't know the reasons or happenstance for the creation of the universe and
the very real possibility that we may never know.

As an agnostic, I'm also open to the idea that if a God did create man, then a God with such a love and understanding of the need for diversity in all things (is there just one type of flower, or multiple specie to survive in different environments) that said God might see the need for multiple religions (many seem to have the Golden Rule as a base line) to survive in different cultures.

 

Have you studied Jewish beliefs or the Tanakh with an open mind?
I was once a committed Christian as Mitt claims to be. I studied the Bible as a Christian. I preached many sermons, compiled many Bible studies. But in studying the Bible (the whole Bible) with an open mind I soon realised its fallibility. Something others are not prepared to do despite it being obvious.

As an agnostic why should I prefer the Tanakh against the New Testament? I simply prefer not to see one religion built upon misrepresented teachings of another. Even Judaism has its faults in taking up earlier beliefs. I have no bias one against the other. Religion is up to the individual.

If you think my interpretation is wrong then study the Tanakh for yourself. Ask why Isaiah, for instance, should refer to Israel as the Suffering Servant throughout his book - except for 1 chapter, 53, which Christians claim he suddenly refers to Jesus.

Find answers for the points I made before.

 

Will come back to you on that.ASAP.

 

Sure have. How is that relevant? You declare the 'Bible' to be fallible, yet you have not shown where the 'Bible' is fallible. Can you point that out to me?

I don't believe that I said you "should",,, however I do believe that I said that you do. The very fact that you believe the Tanakh to be more reliable than the 'Bible' says that you have a personal preference, bias, prejudice. Of course 'Religion' is up to the individual. No argument on that. On the other hand we were not discussing the rights of people, we were discussing your views on the Tanakh vs the 'Bible'.

Are you suggesting that "all" Christians make such a claim? I hope not.

Why should I find answers for the points you made before? Can't you clarify your own points instead of requiring others to find the answers for you?