Part 39 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Good post.

Yes, he tends to think that posting long sections of the bible is a useful argument style, but rarely does the content even address the issues of the thread. It's more like an excuse to be preaching.

 

Romans chapter 5 is pretty clear that Sin entered the world and passed down from generation to generation. Christ, had no earthly father so he did not have sin passed down from his father, just like Adam did not have sin passed down from his father.

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

 

Given who Jesus claimed to be, how he lived his life is surely of major significance.

In fact, we take elements of his life as examples of how we should walk OUR lives - his treatment of sinners and foreigners, etc.

He set strong statements about what is REQUIRED of Christians in their lives, should the be interested in eternal life - as seen in Matthew 25:31-end.

If Jesus didn't walk the walk, then it's hard to accept who he claimed to be.

 

The Jesus character is a narcissistic freeloader who never gave anyone anything. That finally ticked off the apostles and they turned against him. The Bible has several passages that warn against trusting someone who exhibits Jesus's behaviors.

 

Well, as an atheist I'm not touting the Jesus character as a god.

But, I do believe his statements and actions demonstrate a valid philosophy of how to live ones life, whether we're all Christians or not.

 

I agree.
The Bible today cannot be 100% inerrant. Through the various translations down the millenia there have been many words in one language that have no corresponding words in the new. Meanings have changed to the nearest in the new language.

'The purpose of these articles was to explain to our faithful, in a simple and easily-understood manner, some of the differences that exist between the Old Testament (Masoretic) text used by most of today’s Roman Catholics and Protestants and the Septuagint Old Testament used by Orthodox Christians since the time of Christ. All told, there are some 300 textual differences between the Masoretic and the Septuagint texts, some of them important and some of them insignificant. These articles will explain why Orthodox Christians prefer the Septuagint, despite some admittedly beautiful and eloquent passages found in the Masoretic text.'
https://sites.google.com/site/errorsinthebible/home.
This article gives many examples.

What most Christians do not realise is that the OT was not written with chapters and verse - nor with written vowels. The Hebrews did not use these in writing. The Bible was divided into chapters and verses in the 13th century CE by a Catholic Priest, not without some personal preference I suggest as a Catholic. The vowels were added by the Mazorettes a few centuries earlier. The lack of written vowels meant that some words could only be translated by the context of a sentence. In simple terms 'his br-wn sh-rts' could read his brown shirts or his brown shorts depending on the rest of the sentence. The Mazorettes indicated this by putting both possible translations.

 

To themselves they didn't serve the devil. But compared to divine consecration, they may as well have been. Theirs was to put away their youth for the pride of manhood...hardly service to the divine.

 

This is true for Arabic, a related language. While the Koran has all vowels and diacritical marks, newspapers of today don't include many of the vowels.

Those vowels can change the meaning of words substantially, as the vowels can determine how verbs are to be interpreted, not just nouns. The reader must use context.

These biblical translations do include interpretation by an individual or individuals who do have views.

 

So, you think it's a good idea to hate your family and leave them to follow a cult leader? Do you think it's a good idea to engage in self-amputations? If you were to drink a glass of poison, do you think your faith would save you?

 

I'm not aware of Jesus directing that behavior concerning how we should live our lives.

He did claim to be god - and I stated that I'm an atheist. So, it isn't about faith.

I'm thinking more of what he directed in Matthew 25: 31-end.

I also appreciate philosophical elements from Gandhi, but I don't share his religion.

We're better off by not attacking religion, as it is a pointless exercise.

 

Yes .. but for the moment --- never mind about the huge number differences between different Christian Bibles but, consider the differences between the Jewish Bible .. and the second half of the Christian Bible ..

"The Bible" of the Christians is not "The Bible" of the Jews and so which Bible is one referring to when one says "The Bible"

So .. in the Bible of the Jews -- the 100% word of God -- 100% without Fault .. God commands that the adulterer be killed.

In the Bible of the Christians .. God commands that the adulterer be set free. .. and of course we can find a gazillion other similar things between the Old Testement and the new.

And one superseding the other does not work .. as the Jews don't have the NT .. no superseding . but 100% Gods word without fault.

Mitt claimed All Bibles .. are without fault and thus when a few people in a town are found to be worshiping other Gods .. We are to destroy the entire town .. men - women - children - babies.. and fetuses .. kill them all.

but we are not to punish children for the sins of their father ? leaving us again with a massive Fault .. only one can be "Gods Word" .. lest God is a big flip flopper .. changing his word from one day to the next .. in which case there is no point in attending to anything in the Bible .. as who knows what God will think from one day to the next .. can't say any of it is God's word "Today" or Tomorrow .. cause that may and does change according to Mitts claim "all bibles 100% Gods word"

Is a dastardly conundrum.

 

You are so right. There are 2 'Bibles'. The Tanakh and the NT. The problem is that Christianity relies on the Tanakh to confirm - by misrepresention of Tanakh scriptures - that Jesus is foretold in the Tanakh. Jesus was simply a Jewish Preacher upgraded by Christian teaching. He was crucified for offending the religious leaders of the day.
If there is a NT it starts in the Book of Acts and goes through to Revelation. The start of the Christian faith in the belief in a miracle 'resurrection'.

 

Yes .. "in the beginning" -- there was supposedly a "Book of the Law" found during Josiah's reign -- Deuteronomy or a part of Deuteronomy. .. so even if Moses had a hand in writing this .. that is all .. all the rest was added later. Perhaps there was some other Holy scripture dictated by God .. and thats nice .. but we don't have any of it .. nor did the Israelites after losing the only copy of "The Bible" for how many centuries ? Funny the Bible never records when this Precious Holy Book was lost. The Bible goes into detail on the ark of the covenant being taken/lost .. no mention of "The Bible" the best we can do is to presume there was a scribal class .. and a few of these literate folks wrote down their trials and tribulations after the fall of the Northern Kingdom .. this having little to do with Gods word .. and a whole lot to do with these folks complaining .. blaming the plight of Isael on displeasing the traditional war God .. Israel's version of Baal at the time .. version and Rival .. one of the numerous Sons of the Supreme One -- all competing for the earthly throne .. and YHWH loses a fair number of these battles. One curious question at this point is which God(s) won or lost in the battles between the northern and southern Kingdom?

So after the fall of Jerusalem - the Jews that survive take this "Bible" which consists of Deuteronomy .. .. then start to put together other writings .. many which to this day do not purport to be God's word .. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes for example. Psalms for example is a collection of hymns .. this is what the people sang in Church - these songs were sung to music. It is like someone coming across a hymn book and adding it to Todays Bible .. calling it God Breathed ... which just patent nonsense but exactly what the Fundamentalists are doing.

After a few centuries we come up with 5 books which are put together .. call it the Torah - "Instruction"

The Tanackh or Hebrew Bible cosists of the Torah Neviim (Prophets) and Ketuvim(writings)

OK .. so let us assume there was one Hebrew Bible .. There were many but let us pick one and call it the one. then we have the New Testament which is the Christian Bible .. which they later tack on to the Hebrew Bible

One logical problem is that the "Hebrew Bible" found in a Christian Bible is not the same as our original Hebrew Bible. The Christians choose a Bible that has been fraudulently altered .. the Masoretic Text .. which can not be 100% Gods word being vastly different in places from our original Bible such that if we claim one is right .. the other must be wrong.

This is similar to a Bible today .. the internal conflict such that if we claim the NT is right 100% God's word without flaw .. this makes the OT Wrong .. not God's word by negation .. when one possibility negates the other .. such as the question .. do we punish children for the sins of their parents .. or not.. do we kill the adulterer .. or let her go. Can God only be worshiped at one place .. "where his name resides" or can there be many temples where God's name resides ? This was a huge problem between our original "Book of the Law" .. "The Bible" to the other books of the Torah added later.

As soon as we choose one the other choice is negated .. once we kill the adulterer .. we can not let her go.

 

Why be concerned over something that you will have no part in? Who even knows if mankind will be around at that time?...only Almighty God knows.

But seriously, the only thing you should be concerned about, is your destiny. Will you be in heaven or hell as you look into the future, say 100,000 years from now? This is what you should be concerned about Gawd.

Ok thanks Gawd for your post.

 

It isn't so much the scripture as it is the God from whom it comes. He is perfect. But what we choose to do with what he gives is another thing. If we adorn ourselves with it as if we are God, then we have failed. We fail by esteeming the scripture and ourselves, and thus put God away. Scripture should point our hearts to him, to seek and find him. Otherwise where is the relationship? We would just be actors with scripts, all vying for the part with our manufactured emotions as if we could make God from our vain imaginings. It would be better to dwell in sackcloth and ashes than to presume to serve God by electing oneself to officiate in his name, and in so doing, command God and dispossess him of his own free agency to choose whom he will as his servant. When did Gods silence in these matters become his endorsement, and it become a matter of tradition to make a doormat of our perfect God and Father, as if he had no heart or agency of his own. Or as if there were no living God but what flutters from our lips and klinks from our keyboards.

 

Huh ? This is a terribly lame assumed premise fallacy .. encompased in a circular nonsense fallacy .. topped off with non sequitur fallacy.

"Scripture is perfect because it comes from God" --- assumes all scripture comes from God .. the problem being that the topic is whether or not the scripture in question comes from God .. Your crying "It comes from God" followed by a nother assumption "god is perfect" followed by the non sequitur fallacy ..

That God might be perfect does not mean that he dictated all scripture - that all scripture is Gods word. Got some seriously illogical thought processes happening here in an effort to deflect from the central question you are supposed to be addressing ..

If God is Perfect .. and scripture is imperfect ... then perhaps at least the imperfect parts of scripture did not come from God.. which is what follows from your claim "God is perfect"

What is God's perfect and flawless response to the question -- Should we kill the adulterer - the perfect response from Scrupture .. given to us by God ? and why are you not able to answer or address the answer to this very straight-forward and simple question to which we both already know the answer.. ?

Whats the problem -- what is this big barrier to intellectual sincerity ? Is it the fact that the answer from scripture is the exact opposite of Perfect and Flawless.

or would you like to argue that Illogical flip flopping .. from a xenophobic genocidal maniac with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics ... is your definition of God's perfection.

 

No, the scripture points to a perfect God from whence it came. The gift you receive on your birthday may not be perfect, but it points to the quality or perfect love from the heart of the giver. A scripture is also suited to the person or people according to their righteousness or lack thereof. It is to bring us along, not nail us in place.

 

the scripture points to a perfect God from whence it came.

Not in the scripture under discussion .. it points to the exact opposite. Where is this dyslexic irrationality coming from ?

Answer the question from Scripture ... do we kill the adulterous .. or do we not..

The fact that there are two contradictory answers from Scripture points to imperfection .. not perfection .. shows that the scripture is flawed .. and was not 100% authored by a perfect being ... lest one defines flawed imperfection as Perfection... which would be mindless circular nonsense on steroids.


And explain to me how this Flip flopping irrational xenophobic genocidal God with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics - is flawless perfection in your mind.

 

Your simple assumption is that God is perfect. Simply because YOU want him to be. Many scriptures do not point to a perfect God. They simply point to what the person wants a God to be.

 

Atheism makes the claim that there is no God, therefore using your logic the burden of proof is with anyone claiming there is no God.

While agnosticism holds on to the view that the existence of God is impossible to be known or proven.

Agnosticism is a more intellectually honest form of atheism. Atheism claims that there is no God which is an unprovable position. Agnosticism argues that God’s existence cannot be proven or unproven and that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. In this, agnosticism is correct. God’s existence cannot be empirically proven or disproven.

So, I forgot if you told us or not what your belief system is Nwolfe, so which is it if you don't mind me asking?

Ok thanks for your post Nwolfe, I will continue on with this conversation if you give me an answer to the question I posed to you.

 

And you can't answer the questions I posed you. That speaks volumes.

 

That depends on the nature of the scripture, if it is from him or from man. God is who he is. Nothing we say can enlarge or diminish him. His words are always appropriate to us and are like food. As we increase in understanding, he gives new words according to our needs. So we are raised and led. If we speak well of him, and our words fall short, the imperfection is ours, not his. Why measure God by mans words and not by Gods charity and mercy. It is we who are in the making, not God. I know this appears incongruous to your life which is set to the laws of nature and the traditions of the world. But some of us follow God while abiding the laws of nature and the worlds traditions. And we don't find it wholly incongruous because our life is in Jesus Christ. As well as our hope because as he said in the scriptures, he has overcome the world. Now that may sound maddened and wildly religious. But couldn't that as well make the alternative sound maddened and wildly irreligious. Which one is the cult? We have set the world at our backs to follow God and find life in him. And you have set God at your back to follow the world and find life in that. If there is no God, then why work so hard to put him away. Are you sure that you are following the truth and not bread crumbs into the dark?

 

I think that you are referring to different circumstances. God is the same all the while. It is the people who are all over the place. So in one circumstance God says do this. And in a different circumstance, God says do that. Just because you can't reconcile it, faulting God is hardly the solution. As for me, I don't know why they conflict. When I hit snags, I set it aside for awhile.

 

And who decides who the scripture is from. You?
And
Are you sure that you are following the truth and not bread crumbs into the dark?

So many 'visions' 'experiences' leading to so many 'ideas', to so many 'true religions'. Yet yours is right? What you believe satisfies you. What another believes satisfies them. Yet they may be far apart.
As Marx said people need something to believe. What he didn't realise is that people have different needs and therefore one thing doesn't satisfy all. Reality doesn't come into it. People will believe many things without proof because it satisfies their need.

 

Another GotQuestions answer Mitt. Your conversation or GotQuestions?