 |
|
|
|
|
September 9th, 2011
11:08 AM ET
Family credits Virgin Mary statue for saving their house from wildfire(CNN)– Wildfires are raging in Texas. At the Garcia's home in Montgomery County, Texas the fire line comes right up to a statue of the Virgin Mary. The family tells CNN affiliate KTRK they believe the statue helped saved their home.
Next entry »Mel Gibson to produce movie about Jewish icon
« Previous entryGay priest was 9/11's first recorded casualty
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
| Part of 
Do you think Mary, like all Jewish mothers, is a little unhappy her son never became a doctor?
Just wondering...
No ,because Jesus healed people everywhere he went!
So herbert's heavily-edited-in-the-Middle-Ages fairy tale book claims.
If you look up the word origin of "doctor", then you would recognize your mistake. The Blessed Virgin's Son most certainly became a Doctor. It is His desire to both teach you and heal you – and He would be overjoyed to make a housecall if you would only open the door to His knocking...
@herbert juarez
You said: "No ,because Jesus healed people everywhere he went!"
No real evidence, that Jesus ever actually existed.
Cheers!
@herbert juarez
1.) What evidence do you have that you are correctly interpreting the bible and the others are wrong.
2.) Why couldn't your god provide a bible that would be understood the same by everyone? If He was all loving, He would have wanted to. If He was all knowing, He would know how to "reach" each person. If He was all powerful, He would have been able to construct such book. Yet, there are 38,000 different denominations of Christianity. All claiming they understand the will of god.
3.) Why can't an all good, all knowing, all powerful god, convince even the majority of the the world's population that He exists?
4.) Why do you worship an evil, immoral god?
Still curious...
Cheers!
I still don't get why Jesus would have had to GO anywhere. Shouldn't an all powerful being just snap his/her/it's fingers (or noodly appendages), and instantly heal everything in one instant swoop? Why all the drama and showmanship?
A Bedouin was asked,"How do you know your Lord?"
The Bedouin could only reply with (The Example of) that which was before him, so he said, " Droppings tell of a Camel, Foot-Prints tell of a Traveler. The Sky, The Earth with Mountain Passes, Seas with Waves- Do they not tell of the All-Hearer, The All Seer?".
http://www.qsep.com/books/whatYouMustBelieve.pdf
@Dhard Truth
@herbert juarez
You failed to answer my problem with there being 38,000 different denominations of Christianity. Both of your answers apparently hinge on there being and your having special powers of discernment. Alas, neither of you offer any evidence that these powers exist or that you posess them. Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. Or, evidence talks, b.s. walks.
Empirical evidence and logic are the two "bestest" tools we have for determining how the universe really works. Faith will never be equal to these.
Christians do not believe in Christianity because it is true. To them Christianity is true because they believe it.
Cheers!
Actually, it was reason – and the atheism of CS Lewis – that led me to belief in God. "Mere Christianity" traces his early steps from unbelief to faith. Then Thomas Aquinas' elegant & misleadingly simple philosophy was so solidly woven that it easily bridged the gap between faith and reason. God ecstatically welcomed me home from there.
If you prefer something more contemporary, I suggest you explore the works of Robert George of Princeton and Peter Kreeft of Boston College. Faith does not require checking one's brain at the door (as I used to believe); it is entirely compatible with science & reason.
Unfortunately, philosophy has gone from being the central focus of education to being forced into a closet. No wonder intellectualism is so divorced from true contemplative reason that so many bright people are incapable of truly thinking in our time (certainly not thinking for themselves).
@Grace
I could suggest many books, that persuaded me that there is no god. It would be a waste of my time and I don't owe you an education.
1) All the evil and suffering in the world. God either does not care, or He does not exist.
Spin it how you want, but the suffering goes on and on.
2) There is really no reason to believe in a god. No evidence suggests god is needed for anything. Science certainly hasn't found a need. Belief without a reason is not possible, without delusion. People making the claim there is a god give no evidence that He does. There is no reason to believe in a god or a Santa for the same reasons.
Feel free to post back, if you wish to dispute my claims.
Cheers!
Cheers!
And there's no reason to believe David Johnson.
I have a bigfoot statue on my front porch. All that hurricane damage here in NJ, and my house is fine. Bigfoot protected my house. All of you nonbelivers beware, follow the rules set forth in the sasquatch code or spend eternity in the frozen hell of Atlantis.
And your house might burn down.
"The bible is said to be god's word. God is all perfect. So, by definition everything god does is perfect."
@David Johnson
Bible only tells the accounts in times that God still speaks to man. There are some verses that are words of God espescially during those times that he gave commandments to Moses and other prophets.
The right phrase was: "The Bible contains the word of God", NOT, "The Bible is a word of God".
The ki-llings, who-r-edoms, inc-ests and other abo-minable things taking into accounts only shows how impartial, precise and honest the author was as He wrote everything as it happened no matter how bad and ri-dic-ulous they may seem.
In other words the Bible is not ENTIRELY the word of God but it's a strong proof God's existence.
I say it again the right phrase: "The Bible contains the words of God"=TRUE, on thye other hand..."The Bible is the word of God"=FALSE
Those who read the Bible and keep on believing on the latter only shows lack of common sense and more likely will become an Atheists.
He*
I think you've made a very important distinction, that many people are willing to give; that even if the BIble was inspired by "god" it was written by men. My question though, is how does that make it "strong proof for God"?
@Dhard Truth
I said: "The bible is said to be god's word. God is all perfect. So, by definition everything god does is perfect."
You responded: "Bible only tells the accounts in times that God still speaks to man. There are some verses that are words of God especially during those times that he gave commandments to Moses and other prophets.
The right phrase was: "The Bible contains the word of God", NOT, "The Bible is a word of God".
That is your opinion, based on your interpretation of an ambiguous bible. Many believe the bible IS the word of God.
Let's look again at the problem:
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001), there are about 38,000 different denominations of Christianity in the world.
Each denomination can show you scripture, that "proves" they understand the wants of Jesus/god.
All of the denominations could not be correctly interpreting the bible. Many are contradictory.
Your disagreement on the bible's being or merely containing the word of god is a good example.
Many of these denominations believe only their members will be saved.
Most Christians believe god's purpose in creating the Bible is to guide human beings towards a knowledge of God, and to help them lead moral lives. To convey to man, the will of the one true god. This being true, it is imperative that everyone understand the will of god with equal clarity. Otherwise, we will end up with several thousand different versions of god's will. LOL
Most Christians believe, that god is perfect, where to be perfect is to be the greatest being possible or, to borrow Anselm’s well-known phrase, the being than which none greater can be conceived.
If the Christian god exists, and He is all knowing and all powerful and all loving, why didn't He provide a bible that could not be misinterpreted? That everyone's comprehension of His will would be the same?
The bible says:
1 Corinthians 14:33 – KJV
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
ambiguity – a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways : an ambiguous word or expression.
"There are in excess of 1,000 Christian faith groups in North America. They teach diverse beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, the second coming, Heaven, Hell, the rapture, criteria for salvation, speaking in tongues, the atonement, what happens to persons after death, and dozens of other topics.
On social controversies, faith groups teach a variety of conflicting beliefs about abortion access, equal rights for ho_mo$exuals and bi$exuals, who should be eligible for marriage, the death penalty, physician assisted suicide, human $exuality topics, origins of the universe, and dozens of other topics.
The groups all base their theological teachings on the Bible. Generally speaking, the theologians in each of these faith groups are sincere, intelligent, devout, thoughtful and careful in their interpretation of the Bible. But, they come to mutually exclusive conclusions about what it teaches. Further, most are absolutely certain that their particular interpretations are correct, and that the many hundreds of faith groups which teach opposing beliefs are in error." Source: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
If the bible is ambiguous, then it cannot be said to be inerrant. If the bible is not without error, then how do we know which parts to accept as truth and which to reject as fiction? Is the will of god, relative / subjective?
You said: " In other words the Bible is not ENTIRELY the word of God but it's a strong proof God's existence."
No, Sparky. It is not proof of god's existence. Especially, a being which none greater can be conceived. At best it could point to as Woody Allen stated, "An underachieving god.
The Christian god with all the trappings, is very unlikely to exist.
Cheers!
@Dhard Truth
Hey -Dhard...
You Said to @David Johnson: " In other words the Bible is not ENTIRELY the word of God but it's a (strong proof God's existence). "
I'm curious as to how you are able to 'interpret' words written in a book= 'proof of God's existence.'...? In other words, how do you "know" this to be so...?
" The Bible contains the words of God"=TRUE "
Again, I'm curious as to how you "know" this to be so...?
Regards,
Peace...
,
@Dhard Truth
OK Dhard,
How do you explain this? Where is Lott's morality?
Originally posed to herbert juarez,but perhaps you can answer this since Herbert was not able to explain his religion. I am looking for someone to explain the context where it is OK to give your two v-i-r-g-i-n to the unruly crowd.
Since you are such a biblical scholar, here is your chance to shine.
My question is in reference to the following passage. Please supply the context that makes what happens OK. Do not cop-out and say read it. I am asking you to supply the context. So without any name calling, misdirection, etc. explain the context that makes the following situation OK.
Please enlighten everyone.
The passage is,
Genesis 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
God sends angels down to save Lott (the righteous) from destruction.
Lott (the righteous) offers his two v-i-r-g-i-n daughters to the unruly crowd.
My question is, under what context is that OK?
Please explain. Don't brush it off as I do not understand what context makes that OK.
Seriously, please explain this.
Like when the mythological creatures of heaven came down to steal human women?
BRC, DJ, P2A.
Honestly, I already answered your questions through my previous posts. But it seems that you've give too much leverage on writing and speech that there's less or nothing left for reading and listening comprehension/understanding.
I'm sorry to tell you that I'm strict with my students and I don't sp-o-on-fe-ed them but since you're not my students, I could be a little lenient by giving you a clue.
BRC- Try to focus on the 1st paragraph 2nd sentence and 3rd paragraph last line.
DJ- The entire first paragraph
P2A- Do the same with BRC
Kindly read again (and this time) using the little amount of ozzing thing inside left inside your craniums.
Just in case that thing at the end of your neck lacks the capability to decipher it still. Just do what Hooviles did that maybe I would become lil bit more generous to scoop it into your mouths that you may feast some knowledge.
@Hoorviles...
There are a lot of things that you need to consider in conceptualizing the context of the bible.
Let me give at least 3 things to consider:
First- if the words and commandment really came from God OR only from prophets and other characters in the bible
Second- if the things that happened are commanded by or will of God, OR just by human's stupidity.
Third- Also consider the the chronological order of events.
To address your concern:
"God sends angels down to save Lott (the righteous) from destruction."
"Lott (the righteous) offers his two v-i-r-g-i-n daughters to the unruly crowd"
Let me ask you two two things here:
1.)Which of the two events occured first? The act was absolutely immoral and unrighteous. Should the act occured first, apparently, God would rather send the two angels to gather sticks and play swords man than saving Lot.
2.)Did God commanded Lot to offer his two virgins? You should be the one provide the answer and the verses if there is.
To answer your question:
The answer is NO, it wasn't "OKAY", there's nowhere in the Bible that God himself says it was. Lot as chosen by God as the most moral man lived (at least in Sodom and Gomorrah) doesn't necessarily mean that anything he do or say is "OKAY" for God.
As to lot's morality is concern, you should take into consideration that Lot lived in the place where wh-o-re-do-ms,wi-ckedne-ss and all sort of abomination reigns.
If it surprised you that Lot was chosen as the most moral and righteous person in that place, you better watch the movie "Idiocracy" to see the connection.
"Since you are such a biblical scholar, here is your chance to shine."
Thanks for the compliment but I far way off of becoming one. To truly comprehend what really the Bible is; what it say; and what it's purpose doesn't require much of intellect. It only takes belief, faith, humility, prayers (for enlightenment to find the truth though its hard) and a dash of common sense that most (if not all) of you atheist lack of.
@herbert juarez
____________________________________________________________________________________
@David Johnson
@HotAirAce
Place your bets on Herbies response.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Since you are such a biblical scholar, here is your chance to shine.
My question is in reference to the following passage. Please supply the context that makes what happens OK. Do not cop-out and say read it. I am asking you to supply the context. So without any name calling, misdirection, etc. explain the context that makes the following situation OK.
Please enlighten everyone.
The passage is,
Genesis 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
God sends angels down to save Lott (the righteous) from destruction.
Lott (the righteous) offers his two v-i-r-g-i-n daughters to the unruly crowd.
My question is, under what context is that OK?
Please explain. Don't brush it off as I do not understand what context makes that OK.
Seriously, please explain this.
Lacking grace you will never understand the answer.What you offer to sacrifice in Gods service without reservation will be protected even when you do not know it will be.God, and His agents who were at Lots house did not require or accept Lots offer, post the rest of the story.What happened to the men of Sodom and to the city itself?
@herbert juarez
You do not disappoint.
How do you expect to convince people of your religion if you can not explain it your self.
Your only way is to rely on fooling the credulous.
Have fun in your fantasy world.
Have a good day!
@herbert juarez
Hmm... So because I lack grace, I can't understand that the desert war god's actions were not moral?
It is said: "By your fruit you will be known."
Let's look at your god's "fruit".
God directly or at His insistence, murdered men, women and children including babies. This isn't evil? Is this moral?
God killed every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah and his family, because man was wicked. Afterwards, He decides He won't kill everything again, because man's heart is evil from his youth. This isn't evil? Is this moral? An all knowing god didn't know this BEFORE He murdered everyone on the planet? OOOooopsie!
God had a man believe he was going to sacrifice his son to Him. Do you know how traumatic that would be for a father and his son?
If you had the power would you do this? Would you be so insecure? This isn't evil? Is this moral?
There was a man who loved God. God made a bet with Satan that even if the man were tortured, his Possessions taken, and his children killed, he would still love God and never curse Him. God won the bet.
Would you do that? Would you kill a man's children for a bet? This isn't evil? Is this moral?
God sent a bear to kill a group of children, because they had teased one of His prophets.
Did the children deserve to die, because they teased a bald man? This isn't evil? Is this moral? Is this a just god?
God allowed a man to sacrifice his daughter to Him, for giving the man a victory in battle. Human sacrifice! This isn't evil? Is this moral?
God created a place He can send people to be burned for all eternity. Could an all benevolent god construct such a place of misery?
If a puppy wet on the floor, would you hold it over a burner? Even for a second? I couldn't do that. Not to a puppy. Certainly not to a human. I am more moral than the Christian god.
I call Jesus, Himself as a witness!
Jesus had this to say:
Matthew 7:17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
Luke 6:43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
1. A god who is not evil, can't do evil things!
This is established, by Jesus' testimony.
2. The Christian god is guilty of horrid crimes against humans
Evidenced by the atrocities recorded in the bible and the Christian god's own admission:
Isaiah 45:7, KJV says the Christian god is responsible for at least some evil: "..I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
3. Therefore, god is evil. He bears bad fruit.
If you whine that I am taking these examples out of context, then I invite you to read the examples of god's behavior again. Tell me in what reality or under what circ_umstances, these actions would not be evil?
Cheers!
@the question was answered ,how is it that you missed it ?It was only a couple lines long...
"What we trust to God is protected",Lot entrusted his daughters to God like Abraham trusted Isaac to God,believing that their children would be restored to them by God no matter what happened.
My goodness how dense can you be?
The guide to posts by david johnson
they all follow the same pattern
1.start with a lie
2.throw in a couple examples or theories that are declared as fact or evidence
3.drum roll conclusion that is unrelated to what was presented
kiss own butt and wait on others to do likewise.
@herbert juarez
You said: "The guide to posts by david johnson
they all follow the same pattern
1.start with a lie
2.throw in a couple examples or theories that are declared as fact or evidence
3.drum roll conclusion that is unrelated to what was presented
kiss own butt and wait on others to do likewise."
You have used this before. But, you never point out what specific lie I am telling.
All of your posts are ad hominem attacks on the person questioning your statements.
You have said so far, that I don't understand god; And the people in all those denominations are wrong... based on no evidence.
Cheers!
Still, my question remains:
1. Why are there 38,000 different denominations of Christianity, all based on the same bible? Why couldn't your all knowing, all loving, all powerful god, create a bible that everyone interprets the same?
@david
lie = God sent a bear to kill a group of children
@herbert juarez
You said: "lie = God sent a bear to kill a group of children"
2 Kings 2:23-24 King James Version (KJV)
23And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
The bible says it. I believe it. End of discussion.
Cheers!
Those bears were just kidding around at first, just like your "god" who committed genocide every so often because he couldn't get things right the first time, but then they got serious, unlike your "god" who continues to be the hide-and-seek ultimate world champion. Yeah, that's right. Angry bears and a peek-a-boo "god" who never does anything where people can prove it.
Like UFOs, ghost and other creepy stories, fairy tales, mythologies, and Elvis sightings, your "miracles" and "visions" are best explained by brain damage, drugs, chemical imbalances, diabeetus, epilepsy, and other causes of religion.
@david johnson
Now for the truth, or as we like to say the rest of the story.Very bad translation you got there(if indeed you are not misquoting the text), and provably wrong.To start with they were not little children, they were youths,young persons of an age old enough to go into the countryside on their own,without their parents.Elisha was the prophet ,and was doing no more than just passing by.The taunts raised by the "youths"were directed at Elisha,personally but also spiritually, that is what the" go on up "part references.What you have here are atheists at an early age insulting a man of God for no legitimate reason, about his appearance and his ministry.This was as wrong and deliberate as the atheists on these blogs.When he realized the nature of their insults he called down a curse on them ,sure enough , but think about it.Where were the two bears?Not too far off ,what but the protecting hand of God was holding back those bears in the first place?Even your KJ translation does not say they were killed it says tare.The youths got a whipping ,they were mauled, not killed and rightly so.For the whole episode was an illustrated prophecy used by God to warn Israel and Judah of the two "bears" that lay in wait for them Assyria and Babylon.
Bottom line and as always , you don't have a clue about what you're talking about = as already noted a lie.
@herbert juarez
You said: "Now for the truth, or as we like to say the rest of the story.Very bad translation you got there(if indeed you are not misquoting the text), and provably wrong.To start with they were not little children, they were youths,young persons of an age old enough to go into the countryside on their own,without their parents."
2 Kings 2:23-24 King James Version (KJV)
23And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
The king James clearly states that they were "little children". Not youths or young men.
Quite frankly, the age of the victims is a moot point. God is said to be all just. The punishment clearly did not fit the crime. All the more heinous, because the victims were children, but justice was not served, no matter their age.
You said: " Even your KJ translation does not say they were killed it says tare.The youths got a whipping ,they were mauled, not killed and rightly so.
"
Tare – verb Archaic . simple past tense and past participle of tear.
Some translations use the word "maul". But, being mauled by a bear is not a whipping. A mauling by a bear involves tearing and ripping and scratching. Which, would leave a mark more substantial than a switch. LOL
The King James does not say the children learned a valuable lesson from this. They couldn't. They were dead. Torn apart by the bears. No where does the King James infer these children survived their chastisement. No where is there a verse claiming the children entered adulthood, wiser for having been torn to pieces.
I read several commentaries on this incident. Most try to spin it as a punishment directed toward the parents, for not properly rearing their children.
None denied the children's death. None thought the mauling was akin to a loving fathers discipline. The teeth and claws of a bear, does not a hairbrush make. LOL
Your explanation is ludicrous.
I laugh at you through tear filled eyes! My sides aching from the effort. LOL
You said: " Where were the two bears?Not too far off ,what but the protecting hand of God was holding back those bears in the first place?"
Really? Ever been in the wilderness? Animals are often lurking, unseen. Most never bother humans. God isn't holding anything back. We could conclude that god is preventing everything from a spider bite to an asteroid colliding with the earth. But, there is no evidence that either is true. Quite the contrary.
You said: "Bottom line and as always , you don't have a clue about what you're talking about = as already noted a lie."
No, Sparky. The King James clearly says god sent bears to maul – rip and tear – children who had teased His prophet.
God murdered children for acting like children. He is evil. His fruits speak for themselves.
Believer's Rule of Thumb: If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is a translation or copyist's error; means something other than what it actually says; Is a mystery of god or not discernable by humans; or is just plain magic.
So, spin baby, spin! It is what it is.
Cheers!
Keep these up Dave thoroughly enjoyable! I'd do it myself as well, but honestly you are doing a great job speaking the -real- truth. Not the made up truth.
@McJesus
You said: "Keep these up Dave thoroughly enjoyable! I'd do it myself as well, but honestly you are doing a great job speaking the -real- truth. Not the made up truth."
I have read many of your comments. Good job. We owe it to ourselves and to the people who are curious, and have not yet drank the Kool Aid. We need to show them that these "experts" on Jesus and the bible are just vomiting their opinions. They have no evidence that what they say is true. No evidence that they have any special relationship with a god.
Cheers my friend!
@david johnson
For all the wordage and the accusation of spin etc.hidden within davids lame post is the admission that "tare" does not mean killed.Bottom line david lied.Could be ignorance ,could be lack of intelligence ,could be a desire to undermine the Holy Bible.No matter what excuse he offers it still puts his credibility as to Bible knowledge and his multiple point reasoning in the toilet.God bless
Now we have nasty spineless herbie accusing someone else of "lacking intelligence" – too funny.
Wasn't this the cover of a Van Halen album? Oh, that was a tornado.
My magic invisible minotaur protects me.
Coolie -altho I'm partial to the flying spaghetti monster...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGSvqMBj-ig
–
@david johnson
Taking Bible verses out of context or without full comprehension is an old trick.By so doing men(and women)over the centuries have used the Bible to promote all manner of false doctrine.You , yourself use the same approach to your arguments.By using select texts the Bible can be made to appear contradictory or support a false assumption.Those who know God can see through the smoke and mirrors.Some cannot and are led into all manner of falsehoods.(38000 by your count.)Even that numerical argument is not relevant to the issue of the truth of the Holy Bible or to the existence of God.It would not matter if there were millions of denominations God would still exist.There is a day appointed when God will separate the false from the true,we are awaiting that day.Your false assumption is that that day should already be if God is God.God set the standard for the amount of sin He would allow and the exact number of souls to be saved, not you.At the perfect time in history Jesus was sent,at the perfect time He will return.
Genesis, Chapter 19, Verses 30-38.
30. And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
37. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
38. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
OK herbie,
Here’s a nice long quote from the bible about how god blesses the ince$t of Lot and his daughters with many generations of children, after god destroys Sodom for being naughty. Please explain the behavior of god his chosen man Lot and why the quote is out of context
Of course, since believers KNOW what the authors from thousands of years ago meant, THEY never take any of the writings out of context. LOL!
@herbert juarez
Why would a god construct / inspire a bible that people would interpret differently? Why wouldn't He wish everyone to know His will? It does matter, that there are thousands of different denominations. It shows the bible...your absolute word of god... is ambiguous. These differences are the result of people not wanting to understand the will of god? Why would they bother in the first place? If you believe in a god, why would you not want to correctly interpret His wants?
If you believe god is all knowing, all powerful and all loving, then He could not be responsible for a book that is not perfect. By definition, whatever god does is perfect. Yes?
The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.
Cheers!
So, Herbie...What evidence can you give that you and a handful of others understand the will of god? What evidence can you give that all the others are wrong? LOL
Give me proof that you are correct, Herbie. Otherwise yours is just an opinion. And like anuses, everyone has one.
Cheers!
@david
The answer is given ,sorry it is beyond your understanding, the final proof comes at judgement.God bless
Fred1
Replied to that passage before,sorry you missed it.Long story, Lot is not guilty of anything because he was deceived and unaware of what was done to him.The events described took place 500 years before the law was given.The purpose is to show the origins of two peoples who were enemies of the Hebrews during the Exodus.(these people were not "blessed" by God)
@david God doesn't deceive or confuse people,you do.you willingly and selfishly have determined to undermine God.The word of God is given enlightenment by the Holy Spirit (the third person in the trinity)Understanding,wisdom and grace is given to the true believer as it is needed,no one is claiming to know the complete and perfect will of God.In life it is a learning process based on a relationship of love ,honor and respect.
@herbert juarez
You said: " God doesn't deceive or confuse people,you do.you willingly and selfishly have determined to undermine God.The word of God is given enlightenment by the Holy Spirit (the third person in the trinity)Understanding,wisdom and grace is given to the true believer as it is needed,no one is claiming to know the complete and perfect will of God.In life it is a learning process based on a relationship of love ,honor and respect."
Awww... But you haven't solved the dilemma. There are 38,000 different "flavors" of Christianity in the world. If the Holy Spirit gives enlightenment, how can this be so? By adding the third person to the mix, you have compounded the problem. Now not only do we have an ambiguous bible, but we have a member of the Trinity, whose job it is to enlighten, failing to perform this duty. *sigh*
You imply that if others don't believe as you do, then they are not "true believers". Again, what proof do you have that yours is the correct interpretation of god's will? Why are you special?
Read, one more time:
The groups (the 38,000 different denominations) all base their theological teachings on the Bible. Generally speaking, the theologians in each of these faith groups are sincere, intelligent, devout, thoughtful and careful in their interpretation of the Bible. But, they come to mutually exclusive conclusions about what it teaches. Further, most are absolutely certain that their particular interpretations are correct, and that the many hundreds of faith groups which teach opposing beliefs are in error." Source: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Cheers!
The smugness of the self-righteous makes me laugh. Not that it matters, but I think there is an expression that instructs them to "Practice what they preach."
@herbert juarez
You said: "The answer is given ,sorry it is beyond your understanding, the final proof comes at judgement."
When believers are challenged, and their arguments have proven inadequate, they always fall back on humans not being able to fathom god. It is a panic room. A safe place, where their god can hide, until the danger is safely past. LOL
Anyone, of any faith, can use this. You don't believe I have fairies living in my left shoe? Ha! They are beyond your understanding. There is a perfect china teapot in orbit around the sun between Earth and Mars. The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Pink Unicorn. Jesus the demigod. Each of these can be defended by invoking what boils down to ...MAGIC!
Cheers!
Cheers!
@herbert juarez
You said: ".At the perfect time in history Jesus was sent,at the perfect time He will return."
Really?
There were no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. The Gospels were written by god knows who in the third person. The Gospels were written with an agenda i.e., Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God.
We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)
The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels.
-Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.
-C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)
There are no known secular writings about Jesus, that aren't forgeries, later insertions, or hearsay. NONE!
Most of the supposed authors lived AFTER Jesus was dead. Can you say hearsay?
Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD) a contemporary Jewish historian, never wrote a word about Jesus. This is odd, since Philo wrote broadly on the politics and theologies around the Mediterranean.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca (ca. 4 BCE – 65 CE) A.K.A. Seneca the Younger. A contemporary of Jesus wrote extensively on many subjects and people. But he didn't write a word about a Jesus.
Gaius Plinius Secundus (23 AD – August 25, 79 AD), better known as Pliny the Elder, was a Roman author, naturalist, and natural philosopher. Plinius wrote "Naturalis Historia", an encyclopedia into which he collected much of the knowledge of his time. There is no mention of a Jesus.
We don't even have a wooden shelf that Jesus might have built. Or anything written by Jesus. God incarnate, and we don't even have a Mother's day card signed by Him.
The Dead Sea Scrolls did not mention Jesus or have any New Testament scripture.
Jesus, if he existed, was not considered important enough to write about by any contemporary person. The myth hadn't had a chance to flourish.
Paul's writings were the first, about Jesus. But, Paul's writing was done 25 to 30 years after Jesus was dead. In a primitive, ultra-supersti_tious society, 25 years is a lot of time for a myth to grow. Twenty-five years was most of the average person's lifespan in the 1st Century.
Some people feel that Paul, not Jesus, is the real father of what most Christians believe today (Pauline Christianity).
Paul never actually met Jesus.
Questions on the Crucifixion story:
"Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save." Mark 15:31
"Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe..." Mark 15:32
It would appear, that the chief priests are admitting that Jesus "saved" others. If they knew this, then there is no reason for them to demand that Jesus descend from the cross, in order for them to believe. They already admitted to knowing of Jesus' "miracles".
This is just an embellishment by Mark. A work of fiction possibly constructed to make it appear that some Old Testament "prediction" was fulfilled.
Here is some more:
According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst."
Yet not a single secular mention of a three hour ecliptic event got recorded. 'Cause it didn't happen!
Mathew 27 51:53
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
How come nobody wrote about zombies running through the cities? 'Cause it is all b.s.
An interesting note:
"The same phenomena and portents of the sudden darkness at the sixth hour, a strong earthquake, rent stones, a temple entrance broken in two, and the rising of the dead have been reported by multiple ancient writers for the death of Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BC." – Sources Wikipedia (John T. Ramsey & A. Lewis Licht, The Comet of 44 B.C. and Caesar's Funeral Games, Atlanta 1997, p. 99–107
Hmm...
If you can't even believe the crucifixion story how likely is the resurrection account to be true? In a book that is a mix of fiction and "fact", how do you know which is which? Especially, since all of the bible seems very unlikely and does not fit with the reality we see around us.?
If Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, who died for man's redemption, then this would be the most important event in the history of man.
Having gone to the trouble of impregnating a human and being born god incarnate and dying for mankind's sins, why wouldn't god have ensured there was tons of evidence that this was true? Multiple Writings by contemporary eyewitnesses – Jews and Romans.
You are going to want to say that there IS lots of evidence, but look at reality: There are way more people, in the world, who are not Christians (67%) than who are (33%). Obviously, the evidence is not adequate to convince even a majority of the world's people.
Cheers!
@herbert juarez
You said: ".At the perfect time in history Jesus was sent,at the perfect time He will return."
By Jesus' prediction, He already should have been back. Certainly Paul and company, were convinced He was on His way! LOL
"Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
Hmm... Jesus may not have known the day or the hour, but He did predict a 1st Century return.
A number of New Testament passages indicate that Christ was supposed to return before his generation had died. This would have been sometime in the first century AD.
First, there is the testimony of Jesus himself, who explicitly stated that some of his disciples would not die until Jesus inst_ituted the Kingdom, and that his generation would not pass away until all his prophecies of the end of the world had been fulfilled.
Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Jesus' speech in 24 and 25 was given, when He was alone with His disciples.
Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
In this discourse, Jesus makes a number of assertions about the fate of his disciples. One of the signs of the end would be the persecution of his disciples.
Matthew 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
While tradition records that the disciples were persecuted and martyred, this was not followed by the return of Christ, as he promised.
The Apostle Paul, too, seemed to think that Christ would return for his generation.
I Thessalonians 4:15-17 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Note that Paul twice uses the phrase '...we which are alive and remain...'.
This seems to preclude the theory that Paul was speaking of some far future generation. Paul made a similar assertion in First Corinthians.
I Corinthians 15:51,52 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Note that Paul said that '...we shall not all sleep...'. In other words, he expected that at least some of his generation would not see death. Again, there is nothing in the text to indicate the Paul was speaking about some far future generation.
Paul reiterated his belief in a soon return of Christ in the Book of Romans.
Romans 13:11-12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
The other New Testament writers had similar thoughts about the iminence of Christ's return.
James 5:8 Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
I John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
I Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
The Apocalyptic Book of Revelations repeatedly has Christ saying that he would return soon.
Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly....
By no stretch of the imagination can 2,000 years be considered 'quickly' LOL
Jesus was wrong. Jesus has been really busy being really dead, for the last 2,000 years. He ain't coming back, Herbie.
Cheers!
Note: Believers engage in theological gymnastics to try to explain-away the seeming delay or postponement of Christs return.
Spin it how you like, but it says what it says. It is what it is.
Believer's Rule of Thumb: If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is a translation or copyist's error; means something other than what it actually says; Is a mystery of god or not discernable by humans; or is just plain magic.
@herbert juarez
One more note to your comment:
You said: "The answer is given ,sorry it is beyond your understanding, the final proof comes at judgement."
It is also quite typical of believers, grasping for straws, to use hell as part of their argument. What you really mean, is that I will spend eternity in hell for not believing as you do. Pfui!
I would need several eternities to serve all the time that believers have assigned me to. Each had their own ideas about what god wants and expects. Each one was like you, and could offer no proof. Only threats.
Cheers!
It is disappointing how pervasive Catholic religious superst.itions have become in México and the rest of Latin America. You only need watch a soap opera on Univisíon or another hispanic network to see regular appearences by the Virgin Mary or other ghosts or angels. Childish stuff.
The sheer idiocy of the legend of the Virgin of Guadalupe and her magical appearences ought to be a source of national shame to any thinking Méxican.
Become? Human sacrifice and rituals were part of their traditions pre-dating European conquest.
Wow.. reading these comments I am not surprised the USA have so many disasters happening there. The hatred towards Christians, particularly Catholics and their beliefs is just so intense. To say it in a nutshelll.... you ask for trouble! May God have mercy on USA. Nothing but the mercy of God can safeguard you all. Today especially as you all remember 9/11 and the rest of the world does too, I pray that at least 10 years on, some hearts open to the love of God. It will take a miracle... a mighty one. Nothing much has been learned from that disaster unfortunately. Some of you are still playing god. I pray for you all from across many seas. God bless.
How sweet. A bunch of hateful supersti-tion from across many seas. Sure makes my morning!
There is no Make-Believe-Shadow-Man-in-the-Sky, but thanks for your concern, just the same.
@Marianne Johnpillai
So... basically your argument amounts to that somehow, that Christians are allegedly, so hated by Americans, so we are pis-sing God off, so he is allowing/causing death and destruction...?
Natural disasters are happening everywhere... and always have. I guess, in your view it's just God getting 'fed up' after so much and decides to kill, destroy, etc...
Your posting doesn't make any sense to me.
Peace...
@Peace2all,
No, she is pointing out the fact that not only does doing wrong enable greater evil, but rejecting God means refusing His protection as well.
So what about all the other homes that had virgin mary statues that did burn? Oh wait, there I go bringing logic and reality to the world of religion. Silly me.
No, there goes another atheist demanding that God fit into his limited concept of who God should be and what He should & should not do. Seems pretty logical & realistic to me that the God of the universe should be expected to be frequently inscrutable...
When does this idiocy stop!!! Mary was not the mother of any god and definitely was not a virgin.
An important message from Professor JD Crossan:
"When I look a Buddhist friend in the face, I cannot say with integrity, "Our story about Jesus' virginal birth is true and factual. Your story that when the Buddha came out of hismother's womb, he was walking, talking, teaching and preaching (which I must admit is even better than our story)-that's a myth.
We have the truth; you have a lie." I don't think that can be said any longer, for our insistence that our faith is a fact and that others' faith is a lie is, I think, a cancer that eats at the heart of Christianity"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----------------------------------------------–
I have a milk bottle named Bob who protects my house.
I don’t care if it rains or freezes
'Long as I have my plastic jesus
Glued to the dashboard of my car
@Fred1
You said: "Long as I have my plastic jesus Glued to the dashboard of my car. "
Yes! Very powerful juju!
I heard (No idea if it is true) of a family that was involved in a head on collision with an 18 wheeler at 70 mph. Everyone perished. The car was totally destroyed. The driver of the 18 wheeler lived, but was never "right" again. He keeps mumbling, "Oh, the humanity!"
BUT, THE PLASTIC STATUE OF JESUS WAS STILL MOUNTED ON THE DASH, TOTALLY UNHARMED!
Still gleaming, from the Armor All little Betty had lovingly applied, that fateful morning.
It is stories like this, that raise the hairs on the back of my neck.
I heard the church the family belonged to, decided to display the wreckage in the front of the church. They want the faithful to see the power of god, for themselves. A small spot light was installed to illuminate the little statue of Jesus, for night viewing.
Amen!
On a south pacific island a cannibal set up a restaurant.He offered a variety of dishes,first on the menu was explorer at $5.00,next was Christian missionary at $4.50, finally he offered atheist at $100.00.When asked why the atheist cost so much more, he replies,well they're rare and so full of crap it takes days to clean one.
Really lame joke. Also stupid. You see, while rarity and production costs CAN lead to high prices, in the context of cheaply available alternatives, the more likely ... Wait a minute. Why am I trying to have an intelligent conversation with Herbert???? Silly me!!!
Time for a south pacific vacation, john?
Nope. Don't imagine I'll be heading down that way, though I've long wanted to see the jellyfish lakes of Palau.
Speaking of cannibalism, what else would you call "communion" ?
@Herbert Juarez
*(sighing).... Oh my god, -Herbert that was so incredibly bad... that it made me laugh ! 😀
Regards,
Peace...
@fluffy
I guess you'd call it communion.
In the game of life it is always good to have someone in left field.
Thanks fluffy,if a ball comes your way ,toss it back ,o.k.?
@herbert juarez
Umm... Maybe the Christian Missionary was the cheapest, because they are like items on the dollar menu. They lack substance or meat.
Cheers!
atheist whatever one lies to another will swear to.
If the things HotAirAce has written about Christianity and Christians makes him a bigot, then what you just wrote here (not to mention other places) about Atheists makes you a bigot. Do you accept that you are a bigot?
True statement.Believe it or don't believe it.Your opinion and a buck will get you something from the dollar menu at McDonalds.God bless
You really are a moral coward, Herbert.
I do not care what your opinion of me is ,it has no relevance .In the grand scheme of things atheists don't amount to a small hill of doodley squat. God bless
I would normally say that herbert has a very weaselly way of arguing, but that would imply that he is capable of argumentation on some level, which he clearly is not, and it is a major insult to weasels everywhere.
Dip stick read previous post.
Bishop – condoning genocide in Rwanda
On 7 May 1994 soldiers and militias arrived at Shyogwe Diocese aboard a red pick-up vehicle to transport civilian Tutsi refugees to the killing sites. "On that day Bishop Samuel Musabyimana was present and, addressing the soldiers and militias, publicly stated that he did not oppose the killing of Tutsis, but that he did not want killings at the Diocese and that the Tutsis should be taken to Kabgayi to be killed." (Indictment by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda against former Anglican Bishop Samuel Musabyimana).
@herbert juarez
Herbie! You never answered me. Why is your god not capable of writing a book of his will, that cannot be misinterpreted?
You said: "As usual your entire foundation is flawed.Granted there are many denominations,that in no way diminishes the true Kingdom of God or the absolute truth of His word. The authentic church is found in the hearts of true believers.From the beginning the truth has been under attack by the lie,and in this dispensation the wheat(that is the true church)and the chaff(the counterfeit church)are left until the final harvest.God has kept for Himself a remnant of true believers salted across Christendom.The authentic believer knows the truth and has been set free. "
Herbie, Herbie, Herbie! The point is, there are 38,000 different denominations of Christianity. All derived from reading the same ambiguous bible. Each, believes they have been set free. Each believes god is in their hearts!
Each of these denominations believes their interpretation of "god's will", is correct. Each believes their hearts are telling them they are right. But, many are contrary. Why doesn't god speak to their hearts? Why doesn't He tell them they are wrong?
If the bible can be interpreted 38,000 different ways, how can we be sure which is the absolute truth of His word? Because you say so? Why are you special? Do you have any evidence that your interpretation is correct one?
If you notice, I have not attacked you personally. Let's debate this.
Cheers!
Your god is very unlikely to exist, Herbie.
Cheers!
@david johnson
Apparently you missed the answer.There are true and counterfeit Christians.The true Christian knows the truth of Gods word ,the Holy Bible.Because there are counterfeits ,does that make the true any less?There are millions of dollars in counterfeit American currency , does that make a real dollar without value?
@herbert juarez
herbert juarez
You said: "Apparently you missed the answer.There are true and counterfeit Christians.The true Christian knows the truth of Gods word ,the Holy Bible.Because there are counterfeits ,does that make the true any less?There are millions of dollars in counterfeit American currency , does that make a real dollar without value?"
Apparently you missed the point, perhaps on purpose.
The bible is said to be god's word. God is all perfect. So, by definition everything god does is perfect. So, if a perfect god constructed / inspired a book of His wants, it would be perfect. Everyone would interpret His word in the same way. Yet, there are 38,000 different interpretations of god's word. Each of these denominations do not believe that their beliefs are counterfeit. They have read and fasted and prayed and come to the conclusion that they alone understand the will of god.
So 1.) What evidence do you have that you are correctly interpreting the bible and the others are wrong.
and 2.) Why couldn't your god provide a bible that would be understood the same by everyone? If He was all loving, He would have wanted to. If He was all knowing, He would know how to "reach" each person. If He was all powerful, He would have been able to construct such book. Yet, there are 38,000 different denominations of Christianity. All claiming they understand the will of god.
Cheers!
Cheers!
david you are really that bad off aren't you ?God bless
Bible only tells the accounts in times that God still speaks to man. There are some verses that are words of God espescially during those times that he gave commandments to Moses and other prophets.
The right phrase was: "The Bible contains the word of God", NOT, "The Bible is a word of God".
The ki-llings, whor-edoms, inc-ests and other abominable things taking into accounts only shows how impartial, precise and honest the author was as He wrote everything as it happened no matter how bad and ridiculous they may seem.
In other words the Bible is not ENTIRELY the word of God but it's a strong proof the there is God.
I say it again the right phrase: "The Bible contains the words of God"=TRUE, on thye other hand..."The Bible is the word of God"=FALSE
Those who read the Bible and keep on believing on nthe latter only shows lack of common sense and more likely will become an Atheists.
@Dhard Truth
I didn't want you to miss my reply, so I am posting this again.
I said: "The bible is said to be god's word. God is all perfect. So, by definition everything god does is perfect."
You responded: "Bible only tells the accounts in times that God still speaks to man. There are some verses that are words of God especially during those times that he gave commandments to Moses and other prophets.
The right phrase was: "The Bible contains the word of God", NOT, "The Bible is a word of God".
That is your opinion, based on your interpretation of an ambiguous bible. Many believe the bible IS the word of God.
Let's look again at the problem:
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001), there are about 38,000 different denominations of Christianity in the world.
Each denomination can show you scripture, that "proves" they understand the wants of Jesus/god.
All of the denominations could not be correctly interpreting the bible. Many are contradictory.
Your disagreement on the bible's being or merely containing the word of god is a good example.
Many of these denominations believe only their members will be saved.
Most Christians believe god's purpose in creating the Bible is to guide human beings towards a knowledge of God, and to help them lead moral lives. To convey to man, the will of the one true god. This being true, it is imperative that everyone understand the will of god with equal clarity. Otherwise, we will end up with several thousand different versions of god's will. LOL
Most Christians believe, that god is perfect, where to be perfect is to be the greatest being possible or, to borrow Anselm’s well-known phrase, the being than which none greater can be conceived.
If the Christian god exists, and He is all knowing and all powerful and all loving, why didn't He provide a bible that could not be misinterpreted? That everyone's comprehension of His will would be the same?
The bible says:
1 Corinthians 14:33 – KJV
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
ambiguity – a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways : an ambiguous word or expression.
"There are in excess of 1,000 Christian faith groups in North America. They teach diverse beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, the second coming, Heaven, Hell, the rapture, criteria for salvation, speaking in tongues, the atonement, what happens to persons after death, and dozens of other topics.
On social controversies, faith groups teach a variety of conflicting beliefs about abortion access, equal rights for ho_mo$exuals and bi$exuals, who should be eligible for marriage, the death penalty, physician assisted suicide, human $exuality topics, origins of the universe, and dozens of other topics.
The groups all base their theological teachings on the Bible. Generally speaking, the theologians in each of these faith groups are sincere, intelligent, devout, thoughtful and careful in their interpretation of the Bible. But, they come to mutually exclusive conclusions about what it teaches. Further, most are absolutely certain that their particular interpretations are correct, and that the many hundreds of faith groups which teach opposing beliefs are in error." Source: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
If the bible is ambiguous, then it cannot be said to be inerrant. If the bible is not without error, then how do we know which parts to accept as truth and which to reject as fiction? Is the will of god, relative / subjective?
You said: " In other words the Bible is not ENTIRELY the word of God but it's a strong proof God's existence."
No, Sparky. It is not proof of god's existence. Especially, a being which none greater can be conceived. At best it could point to as Woody Allen stated, "An underachieving god.
The Christian god with all the trappings, is very unlikely to exist.
Cheers!
A Christian god with all the trappings is impossible.
There.
@The Finisher
You said: "A Christian god with all the trappings is impossible.
There."
Yes. No being can be both Omniscient and Omnipotent at the same time.
Cheers my friend!
@herbert juarez
You said: "True statement.Believe it or don't believe it.Your opinion and a buck will get you something from the dollar menu at McDonalds.God bless"
Finally, you get it! Your comments on the bible and on the will of god, are just your opinion. Worthless, without evidence. The one true god may be Allah, or Krishna or Ra or Isis or the Christian god or Nothing. Your statement is pure truth. None of the gods past or present are any more likely than the others.
All believers have, is holy text, faith and that warm and fuzzy feeling in their hearts (compliments of brain chemistry). Each religion, each god, produces the same feelings in their believers. Christianity has no monopoly on "feeling the presence of god". Or miracles. Why is that?
There is no evidence that any god past or present exists. You would think that if there was a one true god, His existence would be obvious. But, that is not the case.
Christians claim their god is Omnipotent ( all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing) and Omnibenevolent (all good).
1). If god is Omnibenevolent, He would WANT every human to believe in Him.
The bible says He does:
2 Peter 3:9
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. King James Version (KJV)
1 Timothy 2:4
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. King James Version (KJV)
2.) If god is Omniscient, then He would KNOW exactly how to convince anyone and everyone that He exists.
3.) If god is Omnipotent, then He would be ABLE to convince anybody and everybody that He exists.
Yet, ~ 67% of the world's population are not Christians.
Therefore, the Christian god is very unlikely to be the one true god, or even exist at all.
Cheers!
@ Shane
The video is "A Universe From Nothing" by professor Lawrence Krauss. You should definitely check it out. Google youtube for it.
Ugh, not the "there couldn't have been something from nothing, therefore Jesus" statement. There may very well be a creator but your version of it is baseless. Besides, if Jesus was just always here why couldn't the same be said of the universe?
Adam I think you're confused. I was pointing out to Shane where to find the video embedded 2 pages back where scientist Lawrence Krauss gives a lecture and describes the Big Bang.
@Adam
Prof. Krauus is not a believer. He is an atheist. He is brilliant. In this video, he explains that the universe is flat and therefore capable of producing something from nothing. He has a really good sense of humor. He dumbs down the information, so anyone can understand. If at all possible, you should watch it.
Forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today! – Lawrence Krauss
Cheers!
Someone called this "idol worship"...any more than the plasma screen and jewelry the average American would have run into a burning building to save?