April 21st, 2014
11:00 AM ET
What Hollywood gets wrong about heaven
Opinion by Drew Dyck, special to CNN
(CNN) - The 4-year-old boy sees angels floating toward him. They start out as stars, then slowly become more visible, wings flapping behind orbs of white light.
As they approach, they sing a melodious song. The boy cocks his head, squints into the sky, and makes a strange request. “Can you sing ‘We Will Rock You’?”
The angels giggle.
So do people in the theater.
The scene is from “Heaven is for Real,” the latest in a string of religious movies soaring at the box office. Based on the best-selling book of the same name, the film tells the real-life story of Colton Burpo, a 4-year-old boy who awakens from surgery with eye-popping tales of the great beyond. The film took in an estimated $21.5 million in opening on Easter weekend.
Even Colton’s religious parents (his dad, Todd, is a pastor) struggle to accept the celestial encounters their son describes: seeing Jesus and his rainbow-colored horse, meeting his sister who died in utero, and talking to his deceased great-grandfather, “Pop,” who, Colton exclaims, has “huge wings.”
The book and film are part of a larger trend. Depictions of journeys to heaven have never been more numerous or more popular. There’s “90 Minutes in Heaven,” “To Heaven and Back,” “Proof of Heaven,” and “The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven,” just to name a few.
Does God have a prayer in Hollywood?
So what should we make of such accounts? And what does their popularity say about us?
Some may be surprised that the Bible contains not one story of a person going to heaven and coming back. In fact Jesus’ own words seem to preclude the possibility: “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man” (John 3:13).
Scripture does contain several visions of heaven or encounters with celestial beings, but they’re a far cry from the feel-good fare of the to-heaven-and-back genre.
In Scripture, when mortals catch a premature glimpse of God’s glory, they react in remarkably similar ways. They tremble. They cower. They go mute. The ones who can manage speech express despair (or “woe” to use the King James English) and become convinced they are about to die. Fainters abound.
Take the prophet Daniel, for instance. He could stare down lions, but when the heavens opened before him, he swooned. Ezekiel, too, was overwhelmed by his vision of God. After witnessing Yahweh’s throne chariot fly into the air with the sound of a jet engine, he fell face-first to the ground.
Perhaps the most harrowing vision belongs to Isaiah. He sees the Almighty “high and exalted,” surrounded by angels who use their wings to shield their faces and feet from the glory of God. Faced with this awesome spectacle, Isaiah loses it. “Woe to me!” he cries, “I am ruined!” (Isaiah 6:5)
New Testament figures fare no better.
John’s famous revelations of heaven left him lying on the ground “as though dead” (Revelation 1:17). The disciples dropped when they saw Jesus transfigured. Even the intrepid Saul marching to Damascus collapsed before the open heavens - and walked away blind.
How different from our popular depictions. And it isn’t just “Heaven is for Real.” In most movies angels are warm, approachable - teddy bears with wings. God is Morgan Freeman or some other avuncular presence.
Scripture, however, knows nothing of such portrayals. Heavenly encounters are terrifying, leaving even the most stout and spiritual vibrating with fear - or lying facedown, unconscious.
Yes, the Bible teaches that heaven is a place of ultimate comfort, with “no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Revelation 21:4).
But it is also a place where the reality of God’s unbridled majesty reigns supreme - and that’s scary.
Did a 4-year-old boy from Nebraska really visit heaven? I don’t know. My hunch is that the popularity of such stories tells us more about our view of God than the place in which he dwells.
Ultimately I believe we flock to gauzy, feel-good depictions of heaven and tiptoe around the biblical passages mentioned above because we’ve lost sight of God’s holiness.
I fear we’ve sentimentalized heaven and by extension its primary occupant. I worry the modern understanding of God owes more to Colton Burpo than the prophet Isaiah. And I think this one-sided portrayal diminishes our experience of God.
We can’t truly appreciate God’s grace until we glimpse his greatness. We won’t be lifted by his love until we’re humbled by his holiness.
The affection of a cosmic buddy is one thing. But the love of the Lord of heaven and earth, the one who Isaiah says “dwells in unapproachable light,” means something else entirely.
Of course it means nothing if you think it’s all hokum. If for you the material reality is all the reality there is, any talk of God is white noise. But if you’re like me, and you think heaven is for real, well, it makes all the difference in the world.
Drew Dyck is managing editor of Leadership Journal and author of “Yawning at Tigers: You Can’t Tame God, So Stop Trying.” The views expressed in this column belong to Dyck.
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.
Context! Different meanings! Hebrew!
It would seem to be within god's abilities to produce a holy text that left no room for interpretation, that contained no ambiguities, in any language. It could contain science well ahead of its time, or make spectacular and detailed predictions/prophecies that would be difficult or impossible to account for in any other way than supernaturally. Instead we are left with a poorly written, cobbled together docu.ment that even believers can't agree on.
One of my hobbies is board games. The rules that come with them vary in quality and completeness. Publishers of wargames make Living Rules available. Mistakes get corrected; rules are clarified, modified, or added to in order to compensate for ambiguity or contradictions; FAQs are added. With each new version, the rule sets are improved. If god could not be bothered to produce the perfect text the first time around, he could've at least hit on the Living Rules idea.
God is omnipotent, but that one eluded him.
Yes, and the omnipotent got had to rest on the 7th day of creation. Still scratching my head on that one.
are you serious? you think it is literally saying God rested?? in case youneed more info..the Hebrew word for rest means merely to cease the work..in other words...he stop the creating work..it was finished...not cause he was tired....
To KERMIT4JC – Ok. I looked into it and agree you are right. It appears to be yet another translation error in the bible. Just like "alma" or "almah" was mistranslated from Hebrew to Greek as "virgin" instead of "young woman". Oops.
God does make it clear..what happens is...it is NOT clear to me initially cause I do not speak or read in Koine Greek of Biblical Hebrew...the trnaslaitons are not all 100 percent spot on (as with ANY piece of literature) plus..I have not lived in a family life like they did (multi generations living inder one roof with no care homes for grandma and grandpa) its an entirely different culture..and we CAN get to know it by studying....thus it then would not be ambiguous.....heck..we do same thing with field of medicine...one does not read one book then call himself a doctor
Yet you are quick to assert your convoluted interpretation as fact.
yes..because I actually nLOOKED into the culture and the languages used....hello..I actually studied the Bible..not do a mere cursory reading of it...been studying it both in academic settings and at home for over 25 years
The experts in ancient languages disagree, how can you be more certain than them?
hahah...nice try...as in ALL the "experts" come on...how dishonest is that? and WHAT experts are you referring to? name them please
Seriously? Names? That doesn't refute the argument at all. Do you contend that all scholars of ancient languages agree on the meaning of words in ancient texts? Scolars don't agree on meanings of words in old english from 500 years ago.
I cannot believe anyone who writes as poorly as you do has that much education, let alone is any sort of Bible authority, Kermit. There is no way at all that you hold a PhD in psychology. None.
WHO says I have a PHD?? you are the porr reader here..i Never said it..so that shows you are the poor reader...that IM not the poor writer
There are disagreements even among those who study it and who know it best. So much so that you can have one person be an Old Earth Creationist and another be a Young Earth Creationist. Genesis is literal! Genesis is metaphorical!
again context..those who say it is metaphporical do not read it in the context....and just cause thee are some disagreements does not mean that it is not clear....like I said..reading in the context does make it clear..many people fail t od oso....as I been pointing out to many of the atheists who blog here are doing
Yes, you keep harping on context, which was the motivation behind my entire post. As adamant as you are that you have discovered the true meaning in Genesis or any other part of the bible, there are other believers that are just as adamant that it is they who are correct in their interpretation and that you are incorrect in yours.
God does make it clear
Clear to WHO? That's part of the issue, doesn't matter if you can read ancient Greek or Hebrew, many humans still were never given the writings in the first place. As Sungrazer said, if God is omnipotent he's powerful enough to distribute his "word" to all his creation. We're equal, right? Don't doubt the power of God. But, do doubt the motivations, proclamations, and systems of human beings.
we are equal in what way? sir..again I told you it is made clear..and the reasons it is NOT clear to others is they do NOT use context..i said this several times before!! and I have shown it a number of tiumes in the last few days to the atheists who don't know what context is apparently..I have proved my point by showing the context..and NONE of the atheists could back up their claims otherwise by showing context....maybe too lazy?? as for those who were not given the writings..they had oral traditions
we are equal in what way?
Our humanity. Each human, equal in terms of human value.
@mad so what does the human value have to do with God being clear in the BIble in what He says?
Who do you study? The top rate scholars in biblical studies like the folks who made up the Jesus Seminar?
wait..the people of Jesus seminar are top rate? are you sure? and do you know what logic they go by in literally voting what is said by jesus and what is not? Jesus seminar is a joke! NOt simply cause IM a Chrisatian saying it..its been proiven...yo ought to really look into how they determine what is fact in the bIble....
By the way..I study many different view points..IM am avid reader..I look at skeptical view points as well as those who say that things in Bible are facts...
How has it been proven? What fault do you find in members like John Dominic Crossan and its "seven pillars of scholarly wisdom" method? What would have been a better voting system, a simple yea or nay on everything?
As far as I can see, most of their critics were religious leaders who really didn't want anything ruled as being unlikely, simply because it would make their work of holding the NT up as God's inspired Word more difficult.
Simple question for you: What evidence would it take for you to lose faith?
faith in what? existence of God?? as for crossan and all..you swerious? you actually looked into their voting? they never really study it at all! they use silly things to make the rules on how to vote..its not even scholastic at all!!
I suppose that you wouldn't count anything out of the gospels as authentic to Jesus then? Just a big, blanket denial of the gospel writers ever placing words in Jesus' mouth to champion their own agendas?
there has been NO evidence to dismiss things out of the Bible..and especially the haphazard way the JS does things..its ridiculous and I wouldn't think any atheists in here would have taken the JS (Jesus seminar) seriously...I guess I was wrong..they are pretty gullible
"there has been NO evidence to dismiss things out of the Bible.."
LOL. There is HUGE evidence to dismiss things from the bible, most notably, science has proven the myth of Noah never happened. There are many other examples.
or so they think
Believe these words literally:
"Do not practice ho'mose'xuality, having se'x with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
Interpret these words via transfiguration and interpret 'generation' to mean the generation of man when Jesus is not here:
“Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.”
– Matthew 24:34
Yeah, and atheists cherry pick. Too funny.
The "lie" in "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind" means "to speak dishonestly".
"do not lie with a man like you lie with a woman" means that two men have to sleep in single beds or bunk beds.
The Priests were held to a higher standard and it means same sex sex not the open ended definition Bill Clinton gives for what is sex. No pun intended on open ended.
As to Mathew here is a modern translation of verse 34-35:
Don’t take this lightly. I’m not just saying this for some future generation, but for all of you. This age continues until all these things take place. Sky and earth will wear out; my words won’t wear out.
The "higher standards" for priests meant DISCRIMINATION against them for ANY handicaps they had.
That is my point exactly, "modern interpretation". If you saw that in a Hindu scripture to paper over something that was clearly false, you would instantly see it for what it is, revisionism.
meant 'modern translation'
Given that the apostles were thinking the End was near (Mathew verse not Leviticus) I will defer to your view. I do not see this an error however only as something I have not figured out yet.
Honest answer fred, thanks. I don't know either.
Fred the NIV is a "modern" translation. It says:
"34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
My quote came from "The Message" translation because it makes sense to me. Other Greek versions have a footnote substituting "race" for the word generation. Writers of the Talmud use Γενεὰ for race of men or combine it with οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ to be the greater part of a generation which would time it with 70AD fall of the Temple and those Jews present.
As I said it confused the apostles who were thinking any time now and confused me. When I say show me one verse that Jesus said which is wrong and I will become agnostic this verse goes in the Barry Bonds category with an*
This generation refers to which one? in Matthew 24:34 ..apparently it is those who are in the end times....not "this generation" standing before Jesus..if one reads ALL of Matthew 24 then we can clearly see this...the generation at the time when ALL these things are happening (famines, wars, rumoprs of wars etc etc)
Jesus thought that his present generation were living in the end times. How is that not clear in either the Gospels or the letters of Paul?
Jesus never thought it..again he said things that were to happen that did not happen at the time
Now the FOLLOWERS thought they were at end times..they didn't know when....Jesus did say it would be like a thief in the night..no one knows when
Either Jesus was mistaken, or theology is mistaken about Jesus. He was probably an apocalyptic prophet who felt that some huge change was about to occur. Probably he was just thinking about some rebellion against the Romans, or something else and not the literal end of the world. That bit of theology appears to have developed only to answer the question why his prediction appeared never to happen.
It was Jesus who said "This generation shall not pass away before all of these things have been fulfilled." That's a fairly explicit promise, one that the early church certainly took seriously. It's simply ridiculous to say that it was his followers who actually felt this way, unless you want to argue that the gospel authors put these words in his mouth?
again put it in the context that no one knows when it will happen..and what generation..the ones standing before him>? I think it is the generation that is alive when the events (from previous verses in Matthew 24) takes place...
In 46 translations on biblegateway only two of them use the word "future" for this verse.
How's this one from the "Good News Translation"
"34 Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died."
Wow. I would like to hear the views of those translators.
You have to read it in context...because the extremely educated kermit says so...and the best thing about it...is even though people disagree on the meaning...it's still perfectly clear...
constipation: stuck between a rock and a hard face...
in case no one has noticed ... the pope has just changed another one of god's rules. gotta love how flexible the word of god is. LOLOLOL
Every Pope claims to be the infallible representation of Gods hand on earth, so it is pretty funny that nearly every single one has changed things from his predecessor implying that the last Pope may not have had it exactly right...If science and education can't prove evolution to you, Christianity should at least be a good example of it socially.
Popes are Catholics, not Christians. And Popes don't have the authority to change God's Word.
amen noah..the Pope does not speak for me
Topher – "Popes are Catholics, not Christians"
Why do you say Catholics are not Christians?
They are Christian.
Your bigotry is showing.
"Why do you say Catholics are not Christians?"
There are many reasons. The simple answer is that they are outside of orthodoxy.
A deeper answer, and maybe the biggest/most important difference is the difference in imputed and infused righteousness.
Topher – "...the difference in imputed and infused righteousness."
Seems like a fairly trivial difference in the scheme of things–just seems like they do some extra stuff that you don't think is necessary, but the basics are the same so I don't see how that would disqualify them as Christians.
Has a Catholic ever told you that you aren't a Christian?
Topher – "...the difference in imputed and infused righteousness."
"Seems like a fairly trivial difference in the scheme of things–just seems like they do some extra stuff that you don't think is necessary, but the basics are the same so I don't see how that would disqualify them as Christians."
Oh, dude, it's a HUGE deal! It changes who Christ is and what He did. Those extra things are bad, but they don't compare to the seriousness of the imputed vs. infused positions.
"Has a Catholic ever told you that you aren't a Christian?"
Not personally, but it's in their official doctrine that I'm anathema.
So, just out of curiosity, in your view is being Catholic just as bad as being an atheist where heaven and hell are concerned? Will Catholics get to heaven?
That's kind of difficult to answer, but I'll do my best. A Catholic CAN be saved, but if they are they are going to have to reject a LOT of Catholic teachings ... making them a very bad Catholic.
In order to be saved, you must repent (that is, not just say you are sorry, but turn away from your sins and turn toward the Savior) and trust in Him to do what He claimed He would do.
Topher "...trust in Him to do what He claimed He would do."
Obviously, they think they are doing that. So is it your view that nobody living before the 16th century winds up in heaven, since pretty much everyone was following Catholic ideas before then?
and turn toward the Savior
Don't forget that you also need to be aware of him, to repent and turn to him. This leaves many people out of the party automatically.
And that's why it's so difficult getting a consistent answer from believers – over 40,000 different sects claiming to be christians and denying that some or all of the other sects are not christian; yet all claim the word of god and the only correct interpretation. In this particular case, Topher, you do realize that protestants evolved from catholics?
do you reralize the evolution of the catholics//becoming so corrupt as to not be same as the first ones right after Jesus died?
Topher "...trust in Him to do what He claimed He would do."
"Obviously, they think they are doing that."
No. Catholics are works righteous. Look into that imputed vs. infused thing I was talking about earlier.
"So is it your view that nobody living before the 16th century winds up in heaven, since pretty much everyone was following Catholic ideas before then?"
It's a fallacy to say there were only Catholics before that. There were reformers as early as 1000. And I don't know enough about Catholic history to say at what point they cross an orthodoxy line.
In Santa We Trust
"In this particular case, Topher, you do realize that protestants evolved from catholics?"
Protestants came about because the Catholics had wandered to far from what the Bible says.
But consider a 13th century peasant, for instance. He's uneducated and illiterate, so he's relying on someone else to tell him the proper way to get to heaven. You're saying he was misinformed by the vastly dominant Catholic clergy of the day. It's not his fault he was told the "wrong" way. Are you saying he's doomed anyway?
it's always amusing watching the pseudo-pious argue whose fantasy is real someone wake rainy fuhrersucker up
I don't know what he would have been taught, so I can't honestly answer that.
Topher – "I don't know what he would have been taught..."
Assume for this illustration that he was taught the Catholic approach to things.
To clarify, we can assume my example peasant was taught all the Catholic ideas that Luther and the other reformers said were bibllically wrong. Was he, and everyone else taught the same way, doomed?
"gods word" was preserved by word of mouth for almost 100 years before the gospels were written. Then it was transcribed thousands of time each time with mistakes. The the different versions of the bible surfaced. I found a list of 117 versions on one site and 149 on another. Needless to say their are a lot of versions. So you have a lot of imagination to say no one can change gods word. It has been under intense revision for 2000 years.
you need to update your information...the Gospels were written within 20 years of Jesus death..not 100....otherwise..how do the early church father quote from the Gospels if they didnt exist..and refer to them? interesting..maybe they had esp? How come are we finding some fragments of the Gospels that are COPIES of the originals by about 68 AD? Oh..and the mistakes were few and far in between and minor..for instace..how many horses did Solomon have? one accont says x many..and the other account says y many......thats a minor detail that does not change the story at all
Although 1Timothy mentions the gospel of Luke it is believed by 80% of biblical scholars to be pseudepigraphic. 1Tim is one of the 6 Pauline letters or epistles that are believed to be pseudepigraphic (out of a total of 13 letters). Mark is believed to be the first gospel written around 60-70CE with John being the last around 90-100CE. Luke and Matthew are somewhere in-between. The fact that 1Tim mentioned the gospel of Luke may be one of the clues that it was pseudepigraphic although this is conjecture on my part. I couldn't help but notice that you took exception with the dates the gospels were written but not not comment on the thousands of transcriptions and related changes over 2000 years or the 100 to 150 versions of the bible that are extant.
with the findings of the Dead Sea Scolls (of OT) we can see that what we have today was pretty much preserved and what they had then..we can also trust that with the NT aqs well.....if there had been so many changes as implied..the NT would be totally unreadable........as for the versions of the Bible..they all say same thing pretty much...got to remember we cannot fully trust 100 percent all translations...which is why one needs to study properly by using Koine Greek (for NT) dictionaries and concordances...and Hebrew dictionaries for OT.....when one realizes how the versions are trnalated they will see this....also...thuis is true of ANY piece of literature...have you ever studied and spoken another r language?
I am going to assume that out of the several possibilities you are just shamefully dishonest. There are no dead sea scrolls of any of the 66 books of the bible. Regarding your last comment, how many languages must one speak in order to comprehend the mysteries of scripture?
yo don thave to speak it..i said use Greek dictionaries..ior Hebrew ones..i asked if you knew any language at all..cause I was going to make another point..to see if you are aware of something..sp pelase...have you studied and speak another language?nd the Dead Sea Scrolls contains Books from the OT..
Ok. There are a few fragments from the OT. I missed that. Given the few verses that were found I do not think it is enough to claim the bible hasn't changed in 2000 years. I haven't read the translations yet. Given your past responses I expect to find that that is has no resemblance to current day text.
oh..but it DOES bear same resemblance....scholars pretty much agree that the Dead Sea Scrolls are a vital find that they give us info on the transmission of the Bible..especially of the oT...numerous studies been shown on this..this is actually very old news..one of the things I learned of 25 year ago....so as I said..this is not something new
Like the Gospel of Mary that was found? I will read them and expect to find that you re off base.
The Gospel of Mary is NOT Scripture nor was it ever considered for Scripture by the early fathers... we do NOT have the Gospel of Mary in the Bible..and again looking into the Books of the BIBLE..they shpow hjigh degree of accuracy in the transmission....the Gospel of Mary is a red herring on your part
So you started off by saying that the dead sea scrolls are critical to showing biblical constancy over 2000 years, but we are not supposed to pay attention to the ones that don't fit your view of things. Yep, I can see you as a bible teacher.
My God are yo uthat dense? I was talking about how the BOOKS of the OT that wrere found in the caves were SHOWINH how consistent the BOOKS we have today are in what they SAY!....try again.....
Gospel of Mary was NEVER a part of the OT...and it has NO bearing on what my argument was whatsoever
Also..do you know anything about how the Bible is translated and why therte are different versions? youknow anything baout translating from one language to another in any piece of literature?
Hey, translations or not, this is your problem. There are 100 to 150 english versions of the bible all different and all claiming to be the inerrant word of god. Are you sure you are reading the right one?
MY problem?? excuse me..there is no problem..youre the one who seems to have a problem with it....who says they cannot be Word of God? If I write a book in English and have it tranlsted into French..it is STILL MY words....
I'll repeat my self and use small words. There are over 100 different books all claiming to be the inerrant word of god. Assuming such a thing exists only one of them can be inerrant. The rest have to be false.
maybe YOu should read my post again..I addressed the inerrant part....your understanding of inerrant assumes error in the words...inreent refers to truth itself....all the versions aghain say pretty much same thing..let me give you an example Yesterday my brother got so mad at me his face turned red. 24 hours ago my sibling got so angry with me his face flushed. different words..but meaning is still clear..BOTH says same thing..is one in error??
You really only see what you want to. As I said, some of the versions have additional book that are professed to be part of the cannon. It is not just a few words being transcribed.
You really only see what you want to.but included it in the library as for good reading! as I said..you need to update your info on the Bible
I read it and see what I read. You read it and see what you want to.
HAH no you don't..you reads what you want to..nto me..i read within CONTEXTY..and so far you have given me NONE at all.....IM not the reading what I want to as you claim..
BTW inerrant means it is truth (not that it has to use exact words each time..) but that it is truth...for example...God says I am the only True God" then that uis truth...if it is "rearranged to say "God is the Only True God" it is still truth.....you need to understand what the term ineerant means
First step in understanding the word "inerrant" is to know how to spell it. The differences are are far deeper than the order of a few words. Some have books included that are not part of the christian canon. Do you even go and verify anything or do you just shoot from the hip with whatever sounds good?
OHHHHH..NOW you are sahying abou thow many different books in the Bible as well? you shold have said so..from MNY reading of your posts...it was understood by me you are talking of the different trenalsations (ie New International Version, King James Version) etc.....second...who says I have trouble spelling? you EVER condiser it is a TYPING error instead?
Of course it is. I can't be your fault. Dude – put your blinders on a go about your day. This has been time wasted. I am willing to change my beliefs given evidence. There is absolutely nothing you will ever hear or see that will cause you to change.
Yes, I know i made spelling and grammar errors. I did not proof before posting.
"the Gospels were written within 20 years of Jesus death"
To the rational minded person, this should be screaming unreliable but yet kermi need his book of fables justified somehow so he refuses to see that simple factor.
As for Catholics not being Christian, look up the No True Scotsman fallacy and learn not to use it.
LMAO....unreliable..cause NOTHNING was said before then?> You are the one ignoring histoy and culture of the Jews who were abloe to transmit stories accurately in oral form..and don't give me the pathetic "whisper game" either..cause whisper game has parameters where one can NOT ask the person to repeat or confirm the thing said......it IS reliable....youre the one who seems to be out of touch with the history and culture of the Jews..you want knowledge..expand it..go t a library...goggle things about the Bible..the history and culture of the Jews
Yes unreliable. Stories get mixed up the more they are repeated verbally; written word after 20 or so years of not having been written can't be trusted for reliability.
The bible is not a reliable source for much though...so many fallacious statements within. Only the gullible and weak follow the tripe.
Prove that they got mixed up..youre makin ga presupposition! and again IGNORING the CULTURE which was KNOWN for keeping stories inline! This is NO whisper gamne they played..again they can ALWAYS go back to the sources and comnirm the stories...the jews were known to do this! sorry your argument ffails
I enjoy exchanging views with you, but in response to your last I cannot even understand what you are saying or what you point is. Try to restate you point and perhaps we can discuss.
you were referring to the people who told the Gospels orally before they were written..the Jews were excellent at passing down stories orally..and checking, rechecking sources...you claimed the stories got all mixed up by the time they were written..but you have no evidence of this
kermi: Nothing to prove, it is well noted throughout history. You're a very angry little boy. In the case of the people who wrote about jesus, sorry those people can't be confirmed and thus are not reliable.
Kermi and I have been at it for a while. I think he is coming unravelled. Time to say goodnight Kermi.
jb: As you can well see kermi must be taken with a grain of salt. He claims to have studied evolution but yet denies it; he claims to be a psychologist who works with children but yet denies that being LGBT is natural, thus making me fear for any LGBT child that may come to his care. He will defend the bible no matter what evidence goes against it. He makes claim of personal evidence for his god but when confronted with the fact that those claims are only evidence to him, he becomes angry and refuses to hear any reason as to why that might be. Willfully ignorant is probably an accurate description for him.
Yes, I know. And these disingenuous people purport to take the high ground.
JB truthprevsails only gives you half of the truth.....she is the one who is dishonest..she cant handle the fact that I AM educated and still disagree withhim...she ASSUMES I deal with kids with GLBT issues....I do NOT deal with those issues at all......so just ignore truthprevails and stick to our topic ok?
Kermi – yikes. Sounds like a nerve was hit. Unlike you I will not disregard anyone's comments unless I have a factual reason to do so.
Catholics are Christians...anyone who says otherwise has not read history, the Bible, and/or doesn't know a true Catholic.
Not to say that there are not Catholics who are not Christians. There are lots of people (Baptists, Lutherans, Evangelicals, all 3000+ denominations of Christianity) who identify as Christian who are not very Christian at all.
The doctrine of infallibility is very overstated and generally totally misunderstood. I think the last time a Pope made an infallible declaration was in 1950. Even Wikipedia knows that Catholics don't believe that Popes are "infallible."
Anyway...God bless all y'all!
Catholic or Christian, Sunni or Shia, all belong to the same club. Belief in the impossible and willing to kill for it.
" Catholics are Christians..."
Indeed, but given the state of Christianity today, do they really want to be ?
Schools need to stop conforming to the secular Illuminati and quit teaching the religion of Thermodynamicism.
Based on how much they've written about it and go on and on about how "fundamental" it is to their belief system, physicists have obviously made a religion of it.
But we all know that thermodynamics is a theory in crisis.
Science rejects the mathematical postulates becuase thermodynamics isn't testable or repeatable. No scientist has ever made an entropy in the lab, therefore it is nothing more than subjective belief.
And don't get me started about Gavitationalism! "weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force" – blah blah blah. We all know the guiding force that keeps everything on Earth from flying away and His name is Jesus.
Schools should give equal time to alternative theories, like Intelligent Falling. Teach the controversy!
That sarcasm is so close to real posts that it almost got me.
It got me too.
Unlearning Violence: Daniel Dennett & Steven Pinker
As part of the February 2014 conference, "Unlearning Violence: Evidence and Policies for Early Childhood Development and Peace," Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker addressed the question, "can we become a more peaceful species?" Discussion moderated by Alex de Waal.
Dan Dennett is currently the Co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University.
Steven Pinker is a Canadian experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist, and popular science author. He is a Harvard College Professor and the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University.
There are so many versions of atheism (each atheist creates their own reality) so, which one is correct? If atheism is indeed "correct", why do atheists differ in their beliefs? Why must each create their own reality? -Science has NOTHING to do with your atheism, stupid trolls, so, stop abusing it-
One can conclude that atheism is false and a pathetic excuse for a belief system. Atheists are doing more harm to their own atheism than I ever could!
There are so many versions of theistic interpretation (each theist creates their own reality) so, which one is correct? If theism is indeed "correct", why do theists differ in their beliefs? Why must each create their own reality? -Science has NOTHING to do with your theism, stupid trolls, so, stop abusing it-
One can conclude that theism is false and a pathetic excuse for a belief system. Theists are doing more harm to their own theism than I ever could!
See how easy it is to be a troll? LOL.
LOL. Your pathetic attempt to avoid answering the questions did not work. Awww!!! Did I offend your pathetic atheism?! Awwww!!!! Poor baby!!!
you really need help ...
I'm never offended by butthurt trolls. Amused perhaps...
Doggie, go back to your cage. No food for you night! Bad dog! Bad!
Oh the crap that spews from the ignorant troll......
There are so many versions of atheism (each atheist creates their own reality) so, which one is correct? There is only 1 version of atheism, lack of belief in any god.
If atheism is indeed "correct", why do atheists differ in their beliefs? Because atheists have beliefs in many things just like all people. Those beliefs have nothing to do with being an atheist.
Why must each create their own reality? Every person creates their own relaity.
-Science has NOTHING to do with your atheism. Science is not equivalent to atheism by any means, it does provide a method of inquiry and problem solving many people (including many atheists) use.
One can conclude that atheism is false and a pathetic excuse for a belief system. One can conclude anything and you often make illogical conclusions.
Atheists are doing more harm to their own atheism than I ever could! True in the sense that you can't harm atheism. Your illogical rants do harm to your target, but they do cast a pall on yourself.
Being butthurt is common when facing the truth about your delusion. Let it sink in. It's ok. The pain will stop once you let go of your ego.
I addressed every one of your points, you avoided every one of my points.
finisher is a coward. You can add that to your resume right next to illogical.
Awww!!! The spoiled brat is throwing a temper tantrum! You need a time out.
you really need help.
You sound like my kids when they were pre-teen:
You're stupid...you're stupid time ten...you're stupid time a million, you're stupid time infinity...
well what else will thefinisher1 do besides troll the belief blog in between manually abusing himself while watching anime tentacle p0rn?
This opinion is retarded. Rejected.
Your opinion has been noted and labeled as invalid.
Your opinion has been stamped as Duplicate Retarded Opinion By Obvious Troll.
You are keeping the Ministry busy.
Thank you, the laugh is appreciated.
'There are so many versions of atheism '
"There are so many versions of atheism"
Get a dictionary and use it so you won't make such a complete fool of yourself.
Letting go of superst.i.tion
Speakers in order of appearance:
1. Lawrence Krauss, World-Renowned Physicist
2. Robert Coleman Richardson, Nobel Laureate in Physics
3. Richard Feynman, World-Renowned Physicist, Nobel Laureate in Physics
4. Simon Blackburn, Cambridge Professor of Philosophy
5. Colin Blakemore, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Neuroscience
6. Steven Pinker, World-Renowned Harvard Professor of Psychology
7. Alan Guth, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Physics
8. Noam Chomsky, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Linguistics
9. Nicolaas Bloembergen, Nobel Laureate in Physics
10. Peter Atkins, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Chemistry
11. Oliver Sacks, World-Renowned Neurologist, Columbia University
12. Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal
13. Sir John Gurdon, Pioneering Developmental Biologist, Cambridge
14. Sir Bertrand Russell, World-Renowned Philosopher, Nobel Laureate
15. Stephen Hawking, World-Renowned Cambridge Theoretical Physicist
16. Riccardo Giacconi, Nobel Laureate in Physics
17. Ned Block, NYU Professor of Philosophy
18. Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics
19. Marcus du Sautoy, Oxford Professor of Mathematics
20. James Watson, Co-discoverer of DNA, Nobel Laureate
21. Colin McGinn, Professor of Philosophy, Miami University
22. Sir Patrick Bateson, Cambridge Professor of Ethology
23. Sir David Attenborough, World-Renowned Broadcaster and Naturalist
24. Martinus Veltman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
25. Pascal Boyer, Professor of Anthropology
26. Partha Dasgupta, Cambridge Professor of Economics
27. AC Grayling, Birkbeck Professor of Philosophy
28. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics
29. John Searle, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
30. Brian Cox, Particle Physicist (Large Hadron Collider, CERN)
31. Herbert Kroemer, Nobel Laureate in Physics
32. Rebecca Goldstein, Professor of Philosophy
33. Michael Tooley, Professor of Philosophy, Colorado
34. Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
35. Leonard Susskind, Stanford Professor of Theoretical Physics
36. Quentin Skinner, Professor of History (Cambridge)
37. Theodor W. Hänsch, Nobel Laureate in Physics
38. Mark Balaguer, CSU Professor of Philosophy
39. Richard Ernst, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
40. Alan Macfarlane, Cambridge Professor of Anthropology
41. Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson, Princeton Research Scientist
42. Douglas Osheroff, Nobel Laureate in Physics
43. Hubert Dreyfus, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
44. Lord Colin Renfrew, World-Renowned Archaeologist, Cambridge
45. Carl Sagan, World-Renowned Astronomer
46. Peter Singer, World-Renowned Bioethicist, Princeton
47. Rudolph Marcus, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
48. Robert Foley, Cambridge Professor of Human Evolution
49. Daniel Dennett, Tufts Professor of Philosophy
50. Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics
Mozart – Requiem Mass In D Minor K 626 – 1. Introitus 00:03
Massive Attack – Two Rocks And A Cup Of Water 02:28, 19:14
Max Richter – Embers 05:13
Ludovico Einaudi – Andare 09:27, 24:30, 26:31
Ludovico Einaudi – Nuvole Bianche 13:13
Max Richter – Vladimir's Blues 29:21
Ludovico Einaudi – Eni 30 Percento (The Earth Prelude) 33:16
Yes..it would be scary for those who are not God's children.....those in the 1st century were still learning....John fell face down as though dead...I wouldn't neccesarily call that fright....at first it couild be....he was unaware of where he could be...I think when I get to heaven..it will be peace....after all..what have I got to be afraid of? IM saved by the Blood of Jesus...I will be in awe....but I don't think I will have any fear (as in scared) God is s gentle Father as well...as a hen who guards her chicks
Speaking of the 1st century, didn't Jesus say he would return by then?
“Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.”
– Matthew 24:34
The biblical definition of a generation can be found in Psalm 90.
"The years of our lives are 70; and if by reason of strength they be 80 years, yet most of them are labor and sorrow; for life is soon cut off and we fly away."
26 Psalms 90:10
This is confirmed in the Gospel of Matthew.
"Therefore all the generations from Abraham down to David are 14 generations; and from David down to the Babylonian captivity are 14 generations; and from the Babylonian captivity down to messiah, are 14 generations."
– Matthew 1:17
Matthew is using the Psalm 90 definitions of Generation in order to tell a specific chronological story.
“Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.”
—1 John 2:18
The "last hour" has been going on for around 17.5 million hours now.....
I can use the word board two times in the same sentence and it would still have two meanings...Im taking a piece of board to a board meeting.....just because Matthew used a specific definition for "generation" in one passage doe snot mean it is same definition in another passage....context needs to be used...we have to remember the Bible was not originally written in English in the 1st century using todays English language......one has to look at the words themselves and how they were used in those times...
Jesus isn't reported in the bible as saying he will return before the people of that generation died?
Jesus was referring to the generation of people who saw the tribulation...
"Jesus isn't reported in the bible as saying he will return before the people of that generation died?"
That's not what He's saying. He's saying the generation in which the end times come. You can't just take one verse and make it say what you want it to. You have to read the entire chapter, before and after that verse, all of which is talking about the "Signs of the End of the Age."
kermit, and topher,
Doc nailed you, your explanation over strains any reasoned thinking. Of course there are words with more than one meaning, but the context of Jesus' statement clearly goes with the everyone's understanding of what a generation is, and how it is used elsewhere in the bible. You pulling out some poetic meaning is absurd.
again you are pretending the word generation was used in English in the 1st century ....ever heard of etymology???
It's not putting in any "poetic meaning." It's called Hermeneutics ... how to read the Bible. You can't just make one verse mean wheatever you want. That's isogesis. You have to read it exogetically.
@noah..exactly...these guys are trying to make it mean what they want cause they want to discredit it......they will ignore 1st century useage of words etc....as I pointed out earlier...it seems now that if I tried to explain which meaning I was using when I mention ed the word "board" they would accuse me of tap dancing as well...kinda dishonest I say....using double standards
"Doc nailed you"
No, because Doc failed to either comprehend what he was reading, or he understood it, but chose to leave out the defining passages that he might make a point according to his bias. Try reading Matthew 24 in its entirety. It has nothing to do with how long a generation is.
Yep. Just started reading a book on the dispensations and the first chapter is on Hermeneutics.
If you folks want to call into question the meaning of straight forward words like 'generation', then no word in the bible can be trusted. Throw the whole thing out.
Read it in context. Otherwise you're just being dishonest. And by the way, if we went by what you say, you'd have to throw out every book that was ever written.
amen noah..they are just using a double standard
It has nothing to do with how long a generation is, but rather WHAT generation He is talking about. He says "This generation..." OK, what generation? Well, back up to verse 15: "When you see the Abomination of Desolation..." That refers to events that will occur during the 7 year tribulation. The generation that sees that happen, THIS generation shall not pass away before...
That is what is meant by the passage. But my experience shows that most atheists take the word of atheists' websites rather than just backing up a few verses and reading for themselves.
GREAT point theo! you hit the nail right on the head about these atheists..they cherry pick....
Stop. At least do not teach your progeny your beliefs, let them find out for themselves or we will be stuck with another generation of the delusional.
So which explanation is right, Theo's (which generation) or kermit's (which definition of generation)?
This is hilarious.
both can be correct..we were pretty much on same page.....again read the context
Are you aware that every poll shows that atheists have better knowledge of the bible and religion than Christians?
the poll is moot to the argument..none of you atheists has shown very good knowledge of the Bible yet.....youmay know whats IN it..but you cant explain it...you all don't seem t 0oever use context....you may have WORDS memorized...but you don't know the meanings
"So which explanation is right, Theo's (which generation) or kermit's (which definition of generation)?"
Do you deny then that the same word can have different meanings?
Look at the word "world." What does it mean? It means our planet, right? What if you say the "world of sports..." Well, now it carries a different meaning. Shall we talk about Willy Clinton and his "What is the meaning of 'is?'"
CONTEXT determines meaning.
"Are you aware that every poll shows that atheists have better knowledge of the bible and religion than Christians?"
That may be true in some polls, but it is certainly NOT true in this Blog...
Not necessarily true. Rainier has no clue what Jesus said "is what the law and the prophets is all about" and you don't even know that Sodom was destroyed because of greed.
For those of you claiming that "this generation" meant those who would see the end times, whenever that might come, you are coming up with your own interpretation. That is the best that can be said. I don't think it's clear at all that is what he meant. He seems to be speaking to his disciples. That is an interpretation. We will just have to make our own decisions about which is correct.
"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."
ok....different passage..first of all..that is not referring to Jesus coming a second time..that is nrefering to the transfiguration....again use context..stop rippng things out of context
So now it's both are right!, Neither of you professed that to start, I guess you are learning as you go.
Throw out the simple explanation, the explanation can get as convoluted as needed. Hilarious!
"Read it in context." "Read it in the original language."
Most times I do so I find the explanations not much more than a cover story. I have been persuaded in a couple cases. But most times the explanation is at best interpretation, as I said before, and at worst, hollow.
Kermit's right. That verse is about the Transfiguration.
thank yu noah...it shows how many of the atheists are cherry picking and ripping passages out of context..xcase in point..when someone told me that we are supposed to sell all of our posessiosns and give to the poor..from matthew 19 they did not read what was happeneing...that a man was trying to justify himself...and Jesus told him what to do....and he made a point of it when the man walked away....man cannot get to heaven on his own....its impossible..but for God to help man..that is not impossible......
"Kermit's right. That verse is about the Transfiguration."
This just keeps getting better. Delusional A confirms delusional B.
What does transfiguration have to do with how to interpret 'generation'?
actually..Jesus was referring to those alive now would see the transfiguration..the other blogger (an atheist) tried to make an attempt to relate this to the word "generation" and he failed...since he cherry picked
'.it shows how many of the atheists are cherry picking and ripping passages out of context.'
Always funny when believers accuse others of cherry picking and out of context. Doubly so when those believers are also usually the same ones picking verses from the quran to slam muslims.
I did not cherry pick nor try to tie it in with the word "generation". I could've been more clear though. I was simply listing another verse that seems to indicate that Jesus would return in a single generation (in the sense that we know it).
I also find the chastising about dishonesty and cherry picking ironic. Ask the believers involved in this discussion about evolution and see what results.
I can't help but be entertained by the verbal gymnastics whenever a person of faith is confronted by an obvious contradiction in scripture. The first step in refutation is that they absolutely know what the truth of the matter is. Secondly they then start to bend and abuse the offending words until they can rest easy that their truth still stands. Such is the scientific methodology of the faithful.
Obvious contradiction? such as? give me one and we will see..most "contradictions" are due to the error of the one claiming a contradction..mostly from ignorance of the language used or the culture
Contradictions? Now you have to be the one who's kidding me. There are too many to go through on this blog but I'm game if you are. Let's start with Christ's last words. Matthew – "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", Luke – "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.", John – "It is finished". And don't try the lame explanation that each of the three were closer or farther away so they each heard something different. Even given that, there are three claims of what Jesus's last words were that are all contradictory to each other.
who says those were the ONLY last words? WHy can Jesus not say ALL of those? I can have several people go to a training, and when I ask what are some of the last things the person said..Id probably get different ansawers.....beause they remember what most sticks out in ther mind.....I don't see any reason why one can not put it ALl togtehre instead of being separate...tpoprove Jesus last words are contradictory..one would have to show without a doubt and question that it was saying those were strictly his last words...IM sorry...but nowhere do I find it even implied
Each of Jesus's last words were followed by "and then he gave up the host" or "then he breathed his least". No no he could not have said them all. They are are all attributed to be his lat words. They can't all be.
still...he could have said them all....he gave up his spirit does not restrict the last words of Jesus to be only one thing....let me ask you this..did the persons writing the Gospels ask "what were the very last words of Jesus..the very very last thingllast sentence" no..but this is what you imply...Im sorry..but again the most reasonable thing is he sald all of those things...I will give you example in next post...
So is your point that the bible is so poorly translated that nothing read in english can be relied on? And no, he could not have said them all. It basically says that after each of his "last words" he died. He could not have said them all unless he uttered two of them after he died.
first o fall..not at all..we CAN rely on it..but FULLY rely on the surface? no..for example..love...the word love, epspeially in the Greek has a number of words...eros (erotic love, Phileo brotherly love, and agape action love) onie who SERISOUSLY studies the Bible should take key words..like love...or another example fear..ion the Hebrew it means with reverence and awe....and you have yet to answer my question..have you studied another language before? as for Jesus dying after he says it..it does not say he immediately died...again that's an assuptipon and again....the very most reasonable thing is Jesus said all those words before he died....you have tpo prove otherwise...before it can be considered a contradiction
No. I do not speak another language. Regarding last words – it said he interred each and then died. This is what gets me about people like you. You have no defense that there is an in your face contradiction right in front of you. Your only response is that it can't be so. He must have said them all. Show me in scripture where that idea has any support.
the things in the Scripture that support it are the accounts themselves..again...the fact all those have different words show he said ALl of them..NO account says He immeditrely died right after saying it....you seem to want to make contradcitions to appear so as to discredit the Bible....youwould make a terrible investigator for FBI CSI etc
Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.
How can you read this as anything other than his last words? What do you see here that says "not really, then he woke up and said some more"? You cannot have this discussion objectively. Your starting point is knowing what the conclusion of any discussion must be. You can't discuss, you can only go throughout the motions.
Those right three were his very very last words..the other words in the other Gospels were said Before this one..sheesh.....order..come on
You would be a great investigator. You could solve any crime before even looking at the clues.
You would be a great investigator. You could solve any crime before even looking at the clues.<-you are such an arrogant LIAR..I told you I studied the bIble well over 20 years!! THIS is how I have come to the conclusions I been giving you! Seems youre the one doing whatr you claim that I am
Now I know this isn't abou tquoting what a persons last words were..but the is still the same a man robs a store...and two witnesses are interviewed...one says the robber had a gun..the other says he didn't see a gun.....sounds contradictory does it not? not until ones sees from the perspectives of the witnesses..the store clerk who was facing the robber saw the gun....the customer standing behind the man does not see the gun....get my point?
So it seems as if your "God" "wrote" stuff like you write your posts - sloppy and nearly un-understandable. Who does that? What kind of a stupid god does that?
first o fall..I never said God wrote it.....
NO...the word for generation isn't used as we use it today neccesarily...generation can mean a group of people (not be chronological age) we are within a generation of Christians....Jesus also said things had to be fulfilled first before his coming as well.....like Israel returning to their homestate....that happened in the 1940s.......didn't happen back in 1st century...etc etc...we have to remember..the Bible was not originally written in English in the 1s century...and we have to use words in their context
Every time a prophesy fails, it's because the words mean something else. That is the wimpiest excuse going.
NOT at all...it seemns to failo to YOu icause you don't know the words.....you have to first priove Jesus used generation as in like a chronological age..like we use today...its not an excuse....its called studying..have you tried that? remember..the Bible was not originally written in English..
We have to remember that the bible is a crock of shit. That clears up a good portion of the mystery.
So yeahno, it's all in what you want it to say.
Of course generation means something different when the words didn't come true.
Tap dance much?
Your posts are difficult to read because of the ellipsis. That means the dot dot dots. That's what you want, isn't it?
so I guess if I had to try t oexplain to you which definition I meant when I was talking about a board..I am tap dancing as well? cmon give me a break..it shows you are unwilling to think it through and ignorant of useagre of words..they change meaning over time.
What I don't understand is why, if Christians are going to ignore what the bible actually says and just interpret it to mean anything they want, do they bother to read the bible at all? The bible is clearly just as irrelevant to Christians as it is to atheists. No one actually believes everything the bible said (which would be impossible since it contradicts itself).
reading involves context....we don't merely read it....we use context....as I been saying in posts..the Bible was NOT originally written in English in the 1st century...and as I said..the word "board" has several meanings doe sit not? so why not other words???/
Doc nailed you, your explanation over strains any reasoned thinking. Of course there are words with more than one meaning, but the context of Jesus' statement clearly goes with the everyone's understanding of what a generation is, and how it is used elsewhere in the bible. You pulling out some poetic meaning is absurd.
Dovc did nothing..as O pointed out..i can use the word "board" two times in a single sentence and have two different meanings to it...obviously you are tyring to sidestep the issue on that
And had the Israel conflict not have happened at that time people would continue to try to fulfill it. Most of the so-called prophesies are completely false.
"Israel will live in peace with its neighbors
A Merkava vineyard planter
Ezekiel 28:24-26 predicts that Israel will live in peace with its neighbors:
No longer will the people of Israel have malicious neighbors who are painful briers and sharp thorns. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I gather the people of Israel from the nations where they have been scattered, I will show myself holy among them in the sight of the nations. Then they will live in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. They will live there in safety and will build houses and plant vineyards; they will live in safety when I inflict punishment on all their neighbors who maligned them. Then they will know that I am the LORD their God. (NIV)
A consistent aspect of history is that Israel has never gotten along with its neighbors. (Or, if you prefer, that its neighbors have never gotten along with it.) There's still hope that Israel and the neighbourhood will be peaceful one day, but it requires everyone in the region to stop "inflicting punishment" on each other. "
Yes, kermit4jc. You are indeed tap dancing. Deflecting. Skirting. Excusing.
Its pathetic..i see people saying IM tap dancing and skirting..yet they do NOT bring up an alternative..they do NOT even show context or knowledge of the useage of the words...how sad....and they say Im tap dancing and skirting.....try using the same standard...
The alternative is that you've I reordered it wrong, kermit. That would be the logical alternative that you tap dance around.
Dance, little siiiiiister, dance.
HUH? I you...reordered it wrong??-> here is a quote...I think youre adding some words in that unintentionally "The alternative is that you’ve I reordered it wrong" you may need to rewrite that again
No alternative? It's the straight forward use of the word generation. "this generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.” This generation being interpreted as the generation of people alive at that time is the most reasonable by far. To generate some philosophical meaning is the stretch. I grant, you must stretch to confirm your bible as true, that is why it seems reasonable to you.
yes..a generation of Christians....that does not mean they die out....again useage in the Hebrew..stpopretending the bIble was originally written in USA in English in the 1st century ok?
Again, if you can interpret it to mean whatever you want, it ceases to have any meaning.
yes..the atheists are doing such..they make it mean whatever they want..ignoring context..which we use.....
Hebrew? I know of no original NT written in Hebrew, Greek yes. What you think you know is false.
I msorry if I confused you..i was not talking of only the NT...it was in reference to the WHOLE Bible..thus if you were in OT use the Hebrew......BOth OT and NT require same standards of studying..namely context...
It seems to be the believers who are more likely to insist that words don't know what everyone knows them to mean. Fred, for instance, insists that the word "tempt" had two different meanings in the Bible. Classic stuff.
why not? the word tempt can have two different meanings..any reason why it cannot? the word board has two different meanings...are you trying to use double standard??
Ooops. Meant to say "words don't MEAN"
'ignoring context..which we use.....'
I thought the claim was the bible was the literal and unerring word of god?
@johnb "I thought the claim was the bible was the literal and unerring word of god?" what does that have to do with the argument? context helps us to see what it means.....
I think you are right. Scripture does support that Jesus is 1900 years late. I think more importantly, if you read in the Old Testament all the prophesies that the coming messiah will fulfill you will see Jesus did not fulfill the biggies before he died. It does not say anything about him taking a 2000 year break and coming back to finish the job. But then again if you put stock in the prophesies, the messiah has to be from the line of David, which Jesus wasn't. He impregnated his own mother with himself which breaks the line to David. And no, you can't use Mary's lineage as nothing passes to the son from the mother and there is no basis in scripture for an adopted son to carry on the tribal line.
The Bible does not give any years as to Jesus' return...so thus you cant argue he is late....you say it doesnt say he will come finish the job in 2000 years..yet it doesnt say anynumber at all.....pot calling kettle
Once again you only counter one of the points I made so I assume you agree with the rest. Regarding the one you did counter you are mistaken. “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” – Matthew 24:34. A generation – call it 70-80 years. He is late.
that's your assumption..first o fall..generatkion don't neccesarily mean they are to specific numerical ages..second....WHICH generation..the one standing before him..or the generation of the last days (When all the things he was describing in rest of Matthew 24) would happen? see.remember..the Bible was not originally written in English ok?
Do the research. Biblical scholars define a generation as 70-80 years.
I suggest YOU do the research as to how the Greek word generation has several meanings and useage.....I mean it would almost like me asking you to define a board..mostly like;ly you would tell me a piece of wood...but board has another meaning as well..a committee of executives......so as I said..research the word used for generation..and address whether Jesus was talking of the generation before him..or the one who are in the last days witnessing the events described with rest of Matthew 24
You are not credible because your starting point is that there are no errors in the bible and you will do whatever verbal gymnastics necessary to make yourself feel good that your beliefs are secure.
I did NOT say there are no errors in the Bible......
whatever verbal gymnastics necessary to make yourself feel good that your beliefs are secure._...I think youre being a bit too arrogant to read my posts better and thus you are blinded by your arrogance and then you accuse me falsely
BY the way..Mary was a descedent of David..so the line was not broken..you need to study the Scriptures more
Are you even reading the entire post? Tribal lineage never passes from the mother. Ever. Even if we go down that path the messiah is supposed to be a descendant of David through his son Solomon. The Davidic lineage that you are referring to that is mistakenly attributed to Mary traces back to David through his son Nathan. So even giving you the "Mary Lineage" myth it doesn't work. Either way – show me a reference in the bible where anything passes to a son from his mother.
however..you assume this..first o fall....even through His father..he still is from david...as an adoptive son......this would be ok...I mean...adoptive sons have same rights and such as biologicsal ones do.....Jesus would still call Jospeh his father (earthly father) even if it isn't biological...and there is nothing against that..
So now you are saying his lineage is not through Mary but via adoption? Are you really this transparent? Show me one precedent in scripture of the Tribal Line being passed through adoption. There is actual scripture against it referring to a priest being unable to pass priesthood to his adopted son. I am getting tired of instructing you so look it up yourself.
I never said it was not through Mary.....Jesus was born thru Mary...who was a descendant of David...Lukle clearly showing Jesus humanity....oh..and you don't have to uinstruct me on much..i know all this..we are not referring to priests anyways....Matthew shows Jesus kingly lineage.....use context please...I have studied and taught the Bible for 25+ years now..I know whats in there...
The mistaken lineage attributed to Mary is via Davids son Nathan. The messiah has to come from David via Solomon. The reason that you don't know this is that Bible teachers never delve into the problems in the bible. How ofter have you taught your students about slavery and murder all allowed by the bible?
OMG you are so pathetic! so Jesus does NOT have two parents? NO human have two parents? Jesus has at least ONAE biological parent..His MOTHER! sheesh....as for the murder stuff..that is not relevant to the point we were discussion and you need to keep it out and use it for another point ok? that was something that sounded like youre being desperate
I completely understand why you want to avoid the issues I brought up. I would too. You have avoided the decendancy via Nathan vs. Solomon. The messiah must be via Solomon per the prophecies. Even then, there is no lineage for Mary in the bible and show me the scriptural support for ANYTHING to be passed from mother to son. It's a misogynistic system. Women are totally discounted. They don't count.
I have NOT avoided that at all..I have addressed them both...either Yo uare missing my posts..or just SKIMMIMG over them..take your pick..as for now this is my last post till later tonight as I have to return to work....oh..and women DO coiunt...yes..we have instances recorded in the Bible where the MEn did not count them as such..but the WHOKLE of Bible showsotherwise (BOT man and woman made in image of God) in gensis Proverbs 31 is of a woman who works for her pay (NOT a stay at home mom) Paul refers to WOMEN as being his fellow workers! Priestsesses (not just MALE priests) etc etc....you have apparently not read the whole of the Bible) I could name much more..but I have to get back to work
BTW no murder was allowed by the Bible....and people who are in debt are enslaved.....God made a way to get out of debt....that is what iteach cause that is what the Bible teaches.... (murder is defined as UNLAWFUL taking of life-you have to first prove that God has no right to take life that HE gives)
kermi: There is no excuse for murder or slavery and for you to make absurd claims shows how pathetically immoral you are.
My point was that murder and slavery are abhorrent but they are condoned in scripture. See below.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way". (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
jb: No matter how much you may point out this stuff to kermi, he will find a way to justify the book.
I know. It's like trying to pour water uphill. The amazing part is that they always counter that the non christian is just so inflexible and won't see things correctly. It just kills me.
SEE things correctly?? youre the one not seeing it correctly.....yo uarte adding stuff into it and taking things out of context..i hardly call that seeing things correctly
I am absolutely ready to change my views and accept Jesus as my personal savior if given sufficient evidence to do so. Tell me, what will it take for you to modify your beliefs and reject your belief in an invisible deity?
I cant change my views...once I find truth..why change? No man proved God to me..God did it himself..that was the best evidence....rather than cause someone told me so....thus no man can prove me wrong or convince me to change...I will answer more tonight when I return home
Are you seriously proposing that jealousy is the motivating emotion required to keep your loved ones safe? If your answer is yes, then you are a sick puppy and probably have a secret room in your basement for those who cause you to be jealous. Jealousy is a black emotion attributed to those who do not have their head screwed on straight. If a deity is omnipotent what possible situation would cause him/her/it to be jealous other than a serious psychosis. Think about it. You have absolute control over everything and everyone. No one can make the slightest move without it being part of your plan. You control absolutely every aspect of the universe. And you are jealous? What could you possible be jealous of? You control it all! This is yet another absolute debunk of of the nonsense you spew. I can t wait to hear what you "really" mean by jealousy and that it really means something else in the bible and that I really don't understand because I don't speak ancient aramaic. Kermit – save some face and don't respond.
again your whole argument is based on your ignorance of what jealousy is...jealousy as I said is a SEALOUS guarding of what belings to you...in a living and caring way..I love my wife..I care for her and want the best for her....when she messes with another guy...she destroys her relationship with me....do I want her to destroy it? no...I will help her keep the relationship..if she desires to destroy it...then yes..I will let her go...and she will face consequences (messed up life, relationships, etc)....as I said..jealousy has more than one meaning/defintion
Kermi – Even using your obscure definition of jealously, no I am not jealous for my wife. I do not need to "jealously guard what belongs to me" to use your words. How you do that in a "caring and loving way" escapes me. Again, I see a locked room in your basement. If my wife needed such attentions to keep her from leaving then there really wasn't a good relationship there in the first place. Anyway I see the distinction you are trying to make between definitions of Jealously and it does not affect the conversation one way or another.
My definition is NOT obscure..you just are ignorantr an dclosing your eyes to what the word jealousy means..yo only have ONE definition for it in YOUR closed in life.....as I aid..go read a dictionary...better yet Ill give you a link.....from what I gain from your post...it seems you don't give a darn of your relationship with your wife....if she wants to run off with another man...are you gonna freely let her go..without a fight? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jealous there is the link..go learn something new
Keep reading the posts. You will get to the discussion on the definition of jealousy. In every dictionary I referenced, your definition was almost always the last of 4 or 5 listed. So yes, relative to other definitions yours is obscure.
If my wife desired to run off with another man, no, I would not fight it. If she wanted to go and I fought successfully to make her stay, what would I have? A woman who wanted to be with someone else in my bed? If it comes to fighting the battle is already lost. I create an environment at home and treat my my such that it is unlikely that she will want to leave. My focus is preventative and yours is fighting to make her stay after the marriage has already failed. Once again, I picture a locked room in your basement.
the battle is lost? wow...no wonder divorce rates so high..people give up so easily...so you wouldn't try to get counseling and all..to bring it back? and this is not a locked room.....sure..let them go AFTER you have tired all things to fix the marriage...so MY definition and certainly GODS is NOT a locked room...oh..and by the way..yeah..seems obscure.....because people give up easily.....they see nothing worth fighting for...why get married then?
I will be married 30 years next month so I am speaking from experience. If my wife decided to leave me for another man, the marriage is over. I do my fighting in a preventative way keeping the marriage healthy so hopefully that day never comes. Once she is with someone else it's over. Fighting to make her stay comes from ego.
ohhh..so even in preventaive it wont guarantee something to go wrong and you then throw your hands up and say "its done" sorry...but I would go into counceling and such...especially after 30 years..something would have had to happened...and it isn't for myself ...you say its ego..but for the woman as well...the marriage isn't fight for yourself..you protect your lady as she protects you does that not happen?? we all mess up...even when using preventive measures....that don't mesan you thrrow your hamnds up without doing a thing and give up
Are you seriously proposing that jealousy is the motivating emotion required to keep your loved ones safe? If your answer is yes, then you are a sick puppy and probably have a secret room in your basement for those who cause you to be jealous. Jealousy is a black emotion attributed to those who do not have their head screwed on straight. If a deity is omnipotent what possible situation would cause him/her/it to be jealous other than a serious psychosis. Think about it. You have absolute control over everything and everyone. No one can make the slightest move without it being part of your plan. You control absolutely every aspect of the universe. And you are jealous? What could you possibly be jealous of? You control it all! This is yet another absolute debunk of of the nonsense you spew. I can t wait to hear what you "really" mean by jealousy and that it really means something else in the bible and that I really don't understand because I don't speak ancient aramaic. Kermit – save some face and don't respond. We are all laughing at you even in advance of your ridiculous response.
Great way to expand and grow your mind. Living a life of servitude to an invisible and non existent deity and closing your eyes to any evidence to the contrary. I have to admire the marketing genius behind this. You were sold a product that can't be seen, touched or smelled and you aren't allowed to ask any questions about its existence and it only cost you your life. I feel sorry for you.
great way to misrepresent my belief! you cant smell taste or see gravity...you were sold out too (see my point.your little remark can be sent right back at you) and whats this carp of me now being allowed to question?> you are sick...you are ignorant and assume too much...nowhere did I say I cant aqsk..nowhere do I teach we cant ask..nowhere does the Bible say we cannot ask....that's silly stuff made up by ignorant fools...if anyone is to feel sorry for another..is me feeling sorry for YOu for making so many assumptions about other people that makes them unrecognizable
Must be getting close to a nerve. You make my point for me exactly by bringing up gravity. It exists. It can be measured. It's effects can be accurately and repeatedly predicted. It governs the movement of planets, moon, comets and asteroids in an exact and repeatable fashion. It can be felt. If it disappeared we would all know it immediately. Your faith and your god possess none of these attributes or I would be a believer. So, no you are sending nothing "back at me" other than acknowledgement that my point is right on.
not a tall..youleft out heard....and such..I know His presence..I hear His voice (not voices plural) so one cannot siompply say I have a mental problem.)
nothing in your post about murder..and again yo uare against paying off debts? THAT is ALl what you posted of..those who work to pay off debts! Sure, it may not have been the best way..but they did not have a welfare system as we do today..remember..they are starting out a new society!
Kermit – nothing would make me happier than responding to your last post. However, even with an understanding of english better than most, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. Do us all a favor and slow down, spell out each word aloud and try to present a coherent post. Your belief system is flimsy enough without compounding it with unintelligible english.
" know His presence..I hear His voice "
And how do you a)know it is YOUR god, and b) How have you excluded all other possibilities.?
Until you have, you CANNOT know, so your statement is either evidence of delusion or a lie...which is it?
You go ahead Kermi and run off to heaven. Just don't try to take anyone with you.
He does appear to be so delusional that if he heard the voice of his god tell him to kill he would do it. I see another Andrea Yates here.
You are a stupid liar! I would never kill someone...idiot..go run away to your little cave in the wall and stop making carp up about people...
You fooltard! I didn't say you would, I said you appear to be one who might...big difference.
what are the odds of a little girl in india having a miraculous vision of the virgin mary?
what are the odds of an aboriginal tribesman having a miraculous vision of the monkey god hanuman?
There is no miraculous supernatural god. It's regional fairy tales put into impressionable minds by parents and elders and the rest is just the randomness of human nature and the workings of our animal brain when subjected to a myriad combinations of psychoses, stress, imagination and drugs. That and the human creature's innate ability to lie for gain, power or fame.
Yes, have you ever noticed that virtually every "sighting" of the Virgin Mary involves young French girls approaching puberty. Below is a list of every "official" appearance by Mary according to the Catholic church and the demographics of the people to whom she "appeared":
Our Lady of Guadalupe – a Méxican peasant
Our Lady of Laus– young, poor, rural French girl – a shepherdess
Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal – young, poor French girl from Paris
Our Lady of La Salette– young, poor, rural French girl and boy – a shepherd and shepherdess
Our Lady of Lourdes– young French girl – a shepherdess
Our Lady of Pontmain – young French girls and boys – children on a farm
Our Lady of Fátima – young poor, Portuguese girls – shepherdesses
Our Lady of Knock – various rural Irish witnesses of all ages
Our Lady of Beauraing – young poor rural Franco Belgian girls and boys
Our Lady of Banneux – young poor, rural Belgian French girl
It seems that, if one wants to be visited by the Virgin Mary, one needs to be French, female, poor and to hang around sheep.
maybe Mary likes lamb and French wine?
Or young French women. I always suspected she was a lesbian, given that she was a virgin well past the age where she should have been. lol
Our Lady Of Nooky–rich TV evangelists, Swaggart and Baker, not sure about sheep but who knows.
I wonder if part of the reason for Christianity's huge success is it's simplicity and easy road to paradise.
Judaism is complex (a lot of rules) and they enforce behavior strictly. It takes a lot of study to get all the rules straight. Christianity has lots of rules, but they also have the easy out, if you accept Christ as your savior you're in heaven.
It's a good strategy, a lot more people play checkers than chess.
It also fits with basic psychology, people avoid complexity and simplify. Behaviors I don't like are evil. One nice catch basin for everything bad. No need to probe further, it's evil. I'm glad science didn't take that approach, many socially unacceptable behaviors have been studied, causes found, and treatments developed.
"I wonder if part of the reason for Christianity's huge success is it's simplicity and easy road to paradise."
Anyone who says Christianity is a bed of roses has never read the New Testament.
So if I sincerely believe Christ is my savior, that doesn't get me into heaven?
sincerely believing is going to involve more...you will come to know Jesus personally (Jesus says to those who vainly used his name.."Away from me for I never knew you" He also says "If you abide in me I will abide in you" this is getting to know Jesus personally....experiencing a relationship
OK, the point still stands.
Not quite. You must also repent.
My point being if you're a Christian, the world will hate you. Just visit The Voice of the Martyrs' website. People are still killed all over the world just for a belief. And many countries still make it illegal to even own a Bible, let alone meet for church.
OK, have a relationship with Jesus and repent, the point still stands.
Still not easy. Easier than following the 600 laws of Judaism, I'll grant you. We can't and we won't. That's why we NEED the Savior. He fulfilled those laws.
TO NOAHSDADTOPHER – Don't forget that Christians have to follow all the old laws of the Old Testament as well to be welcomed in heaven.
"Anyone who says Christianity is a bed of roses has never read the New Testament."
It's a whole lot easier than the Old Testament where people were commanded to go around killing each other for a long list of reasons.
Right, Christianity can be reduced to only one rule: love your neighbor. But, while it may look simple and easy, that rule is almost impossible to follow for most people without the help of Jesus
"that rule is almost impossible to follow for most people without the help of Jesus"
Wrong. Look at the HUGE number of followers of Jesus who try to deny equal rights to others and hypocritically call people murderers who haven't murdered anyone.
Anxiety, Mass hysteria and Panic are all the result of not really trusting in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son. Panic has lead many through History to anarchy, brawls, stampedes and riots.
Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son and you WILL NOT Panic
you think you are a wit ... but you are only half right.
Panic? Give us a break !! I panicked for 65 years and then I started my search for the truth. The result:
Only for the new members of this blog–
The Apostles' Creed 2014: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
(references used are available upon request)
No, no break for you all, not at all.
Is. 48:22 "There is no peace for the wicked," says the Lord.
Is. 57:21 "There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked."
I too did Panic before I Trusted God and Jesus Christ God's Only Son. However by God's Grace I did not get into brawls, stampedes or riots. After and since I Trusted God and Jesus Christ God's Only Son I have not Panic
Hmmm, let us see what some of the experts (NT, historical Jesus exegetes) have to say about the "Son of God/the Father references in the NT:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven."
Not said by the historical Jesus, but more embellishment my Matthew. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb111.html
Matt 9:6 Passage notes "Son of Man" not Son of God.
Matt 10:32-33, ""Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; /33/ but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven"
"Ludemann [Jesus, 344] states " this is a prophetic admonition from the post-Easter community. For it, Jesus and the Son of man were 'identical in the future: Jesus will return in the near future as the Son of man with the clouds of heaven. In his earthly life he was not yet the Son of man, since he will come to judgment only with the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7.13f) at the end of days' (Haenchen)."
Matt 11:27 "All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
"Lüdemann [Jesus, 330f] invokes the classic description from K. Hase of this passage as a "thunderbolt from the Johannine heavens." He notes the typically Johannine reference to mutual knowledge between Father and Son, and the absolute use of "Son" as a designation for Jesus. In dismissing the saying's authenticity, Luedemann also notes the similarity to ideas in the post-Easter commissioning scene at Matt 28:18, "All authority has been given to me ..."
Matt 1:20- 225 (another "pretty, wingie thingie requirement)
20/ But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. /21/ She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." /22/ All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: /23/ "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us." /24/ When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, /25/ but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus."
In Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (2000), Chilton develops the idea of Jesus as a mamzer; someone whose irregular birth circ-umstances result in their exclusion from full participation in the life of the community. He argues for the natural paternity of Joseph and finds no need for a miraculous conception. In his subsequent reconstruction of Jesus' life, Chilton suggests that this sustained personal experience of exclusion played a major role in Jesus' self-ident-ity, his concept of God and his spiritual quest. "
Mark 1: 11 And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased."
Lüdemann [Jesus, 9] affirms the historicity of Jesus being baptized by John, but does not trace the theological interpretations back beyond the post-Easter community:
... Jesus did not regard his baptism as appointment to be the son of God. The underlying concept derives from the community, which believed in Jesus as the son of God (cf. Gal. 2.16; 4.4) and located his appointment within his lifetime. In the earliest period, for example, the appointment of Jesus as son of God came only after his resurrection from the dead (cf. Rom. 1.4).
Again with the panic??? oy vey!
I wonder if Ranier and Theo realize how entertaining it is to watch them argue with each other about who's fantasy is the right one. It's like a scene out of One Few Over the Cookoo's Nest.
It's like asking which is more realistic, Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter.
Lord of the Rings.
Hogwarts would be clearly visible on Google Earth.
They hide it using magic, obviously.
This is crap. A lot of these really are misinterpretation and context.
It would be more persuasive if you were to focus on the ones that are actually, beyond reasonable interpretation, contradictions.
I just posted the link in case anyone might find it interesting. No guarantees of efficacy were offered.
Why do Christians on this blog persist in posting that "jesus said this" or "jesus said that" when any words attributed to jesus in the bible are at best unverifiable hearsay written down decades or centuries after jesus was said to have existed and written by people who had never seen or heard jesus. That's AT BEST! At worst, these words are fiction written by men in a religious cult trying to further their own power.
How do you justify saying these are jesus' words when you plainly know that they are not? Is it just a habit? Is it a little white lie every time for the 'greater good'? Cognitive dissonance? Wishful thinking? Denial?
Hell must be full of Christians.
I find it funny that even the christians think it is.
“I see two problems with heaven and hell. First, heaven supposedly will be full of Christians… so that'll suck. Second, hell will definitely be filled to the brim with "good" Christians and also most likely with creepy Mormons and Scientologists… which will indubitably suck a great deal. So kind of a lose-lose scenario either way.” – LET
"but nowhere was a city destroyed in scripture because there were too many divorces."
Nope. But he did destroy a city because of GREED. Try again.
Wrong. Try again.
Of course you know, divorces were very uncommon until the last few generations.
Henry VIII just killed them if they couldn't produce a son and it was probably his low sperm count that was at fault.
If I were ordering dinner at a restaurant and was handed a menu and everything on the first page was incorrect, I don’t believe I would bother to turn to the next page. That is Genesis.
Yes, i'd like an order of genocide with a side of inc.est, hold the halo...
and laughably, there are two different versions of genesis in the bible. Even the book can't get it straight. LOLOLOL
So you haven't read the Bible then. Got it. That explains everything.
We have read it.
We just did it without your preconceived notions and biases.
The two versions thing is a fallacy.
Genesis First Account:
Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis second account:
Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gensis 1 and 2nd accounts of creation fdo not conflict..for gensis 1 clearly shows and uses chronology..while the second account is a topical report..not chronologiocal..no word in the second account implies even chronology
AND the second is just more detailed. As I said ... fallacy.
I disagree completely. How can you read these two accounts that are in THE SAME BOOK
Are you telling me that two versions a chronological and a topical version can NOT be in the same book????????????
and come away thinking they are the same?
Besides how sloppy and silly to have two accounts. SO inspired. lol
IM am thinking you don't get to read much literature? ONE is chronological..the second goes into more detail (toical) about the Creaiton....how is that sloppy? maybe you should take some college courses before you write such stuff....you will see how to write things
I for one knew all along that Severus was on the side of good even though there were contradictory passages. One says he's a death eater and another says he is a member of the Order of the Pheonix, but I always knew...
As for Genesis, you have two versions written by several scribes transposing Moses oral account as well as he could remember it from his childhood that he learned as a prince of Egypt with a few minor modifications, Atum is now Adam and he write a convenient geneology back to the first human claiming these people were now "Gods chosen people" who could without apparent guilt or sin go into another nations lands, burn and pillage the towns and villages and enslave its people. Well done "Moses" which is of course the Egyptian word for "Son".
1. The two accounts ARE contradictory.
2. If this is the inspired word of the Lord, why are all these people writing different accounts of the same events? SLOPPY
sorry...you have NOT shown the yare contradictory....the second account does not even USE words to imply CHRONOLOGY..yuo have failed...you have failed to read the second account clearly and in full..instead you shoes to rip out part of it.....show me words that denote Chronology in the second acccount
'the second account does not even USE words to imply CHRONOLOGY'
of course it does.
'And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.'
'And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.'
It quite clearly suggests a series of events, one after the other, especially if you put it in context, and i know you love context, of earlier passages that state:
'And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.'
which clearly state he created man before the garden of eden. So unless you want to claim that god created all the animals and put them outside of eden until eden was created then a chronology is indeed suggested.
the word "and" does not connote sequences all the time....in fact..vbetter would have been the word THEN...but the word then is nto there......youre grasping at starws and Im almost wondering if English is your primary language (please don't take it as an insult...I mean sersiiously..to say the word "and" denotes chronology is totally ridiculous)
'kermit4jc – the word "and" does not connote sequences all the time....in fact..vbetter would have been the word THEN...but the word then is nto there......youre grasping at starws and Im almost wondering if English is your primary language (please don't take it as an insult...I mean sersiiously..to say the word "and" denotes chronology is totally ridiculous)'
are you freaking serious? there are better words? sure but when has the bible decided to use better words?
You want to talk of better words? ok then how about instead of 'And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field', it would have been better, if the event had already taken place, to say 'And out of the ground the Lord God HAD formed every beast of the field' ?
'the word "and" does not connote sequences all the time' ...sure but it is used often enough to be accepted as a method of doing it.
If anyone is grasping at straws here its you with you refusal to accept that 'and this was done, and then this was done, and then this was done' does not donate a chronology. Anything to try to claim there isnt a contradiction.
actually..this is something so clear to be a "conteadiction" if it were..your emaking the people out to be very very stupid...yo don't give them credit for thinking..IM sorry sir..you are grapsing at straws...LOGIC would say they would have caught this LONG before if it werwe a contradiction.the fact is...AND does NOT canote chronological sequence......the FACT is....that given the context AND the different words used in gensis 2 from Geneis 1 the MOST LOGICAL explanation is that Gensis 2 is a TOPICAL and more detailed story about Adam and the animals....NOT in ANYWAY chronological...again...you are grasping at straws..not me
Concert in an Egg, in regards to Genesis 1:27, which was written by the Priestly Source, stating the first man and woman were created simultaneously, whereas the Genesis 2 creation story, written by the Yahwist, which is the older of the two creation stories, has Eve formed from Adam's rib, there are other early Jewish myths that provide an explanation, i.e., that Eve was not the first woman Yahweh provided for Adam. According to those myths, Adam's first wife was Lilith. From "Legends of the Jews", which is a compilation of a vast amount of aggadah, i.e., exegetical texts in the classical rabbinic literature of Judaism, from the Mishnah, the two Talmuds and Midrash compiled by Rabbi Louis Ginzberg (1873 – 1953), who was a Talmudist and leading figure in the Conservative Movement of Judaism of the twentieth century who taught at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (JTS) in New York City for half a century until his death in 1953:
* begin quote
The Divine resolution to bestow a companion on Adam met the wishes of man, who had been overcome by a feeling of isolation when the animals came to him in pairs to be named. To banish his loneliness, Lilith was first given to Adam as wife. Like him she had been created out of the dust of the ground. But she remained with him only a short time, because she insisted upon enjoying full equality with her husband. She derived her rights from their identical origin. With the help of the Ineffable Name, which she pronounced, Lilith flew away from Adam, and vanished in the air. Adam complained before God that the wife He had given him had deserted him, and God sent forth three angels to capture her. They found her in the Red Sea, and they sought to make her go back with the threat that, unless she went, she would lose a hundred of her demon children daily by death. But Lilith preferred this punishment to living with Adam. She takes her revenge by injuring babes—baby boys during the first night of their life, while baby girls are exposed to her wicked designs until they are twenty days old. The only way to ward off the evil is to attach an amulet bearing the names of her three angel captors to the children, for such had been the agreement between them.
The woman destined to become the true companion of man was taken from Adam's body, for "only when like is joined unto like the union is indissoluble." The creation of woman from man was possible because Adam originally had two faces, which were separated at the birth of Eve.
* end quote
Rabbi Ginzerg's compilation of these ancient legends can be found at the Project Gutenberg website. The work spans five volumes, followed by two volumes of footnotes that give specific sources. The work is also freely available in MP3 format as an audiobook through Librivox, a volunteer online project to make out-of-copyright works available in audio format, at Librivox.org.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contains a reference to Lilith in Songs of the Sage (4Q510-511) fragment 1:
"And I, the Instructor, proclaim His glorious splendour so as to frighten and to te[rrify] all the spirits of the destroying angels, spirits of the bas_tards, demons, Lilith, howlers, and [desert dwellers…] and those which fall upon men without warning to lead them astray from a spirit of understanding and to make their heart and their […] desolate during the present dominion of wickedness and predetermined time of humiliations for the sons of lig[ht], by the guilt of the ages of [those] smitten by iniquity – not for eternal destruction, [bu]t for an era of humiliation for transgression."
Louis Howard Shwartz also discusses the Lilith mythology in detail in "Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism" where the author notes "The amulet against Lilith has been found in archaeological digs dating back 1,500 years." He notes in the preface to the book: "A largely unrecognized but quite extensive mythology is embedded throughout Jewish literature. The primary myths portrayed in the Bible, especially those in Genesis, became the focus of mythic elaboration. The biblical text packs a maximum amount of meaning into a minimum number of words, thereby compelling interpretation. An ancient rabbinic method of exegesis called midrash, which sought out and inevitably found the solution to problems perceived in the biblical text, resulted in the creation of an abundant mythology that eventually took on a life of its own. Often the transformation that takes place between the early periods of Jewish myth and their later evolution is considerable, almost consti_tuting a new set of myths based on the old ones. The sum of all of these generations of reimagining the Bible is a Jewish mythology as rich as that of other great ancient cultures."
"But, yes, God is responsible for everything that happens, good and bad. But getting lost in blaming God is ridiculous, or at least, insincere, since you don't believe."
+++ don't be silly. i don't blame a god that doesn't exist for anything. i can't believe i have to explain this....
i'm pointing out inconsistencies with god being 'good'. i'm pointing out inconsistencies with he religion. that doesn't mean i blame a deity that doesn't exist - i blame the religion and the people that adhere to it. your statement is the only thing that is ridiculous here. it's like discussing with someone why fairies aren't real - doesn't mean i believe in them or think they are responsible for mischief in the world. you saying god is responsible for everything that happens means god is responsible for babies dying. not the kind of deity worth worshiping. you mostly seem to be dodging the point.
"We are all of us swimming in a sea of misery and evil, but I ask you, are you happy?"
+++ i don't agree we are swimming in a sea of misery and evil. you have a very pessimistic view of humanity - i do not. yes, i'm very happy. sounds like you aren't. sounds like you think we live in a dismal world - i don't.
"Are you finding a way to contribute to making the world a better place?"
+++ yes, i regularly volunteer at homeless charity organizations. my sister, also an atheist, runs one where they feed the homeless in public parks.
same question to you.
"And if so, from where do you derive your inspiration, your motivation, your perseverance?"
+++ from humanity. from my brothers and sisters of this world. from the scientific method. from the fact that antibiotics has saved more lives than all the lives lost in both World Wars put together. from love, kindness and empathy, which have much to do with humanity and nothing to do with god. from my relationships. from the awe and beauty of the natural world. from the stars. the list goes on...
same question to you.
sorry, meant this as a reply to sealchan.
Given your response I feel that I have likely projected into one or two of your posts a perspective that was not there. Having these discussions in this context is probably fraught with these kinds of contextual misunderstandings. I know that I am also responding, in my mind, to more than just your post.
Thank you for your response and I apologize if any of my questions seemed at all like a personal attack.
when you use words like "ridiculous" and "insincere", it's obvious you're attacking.