Hey, did you guys know George Washington served as a cook during the revolution?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve asked it before, but why do atheists have a theology, absolutes on what God must or must not be? Very bizarre.[/quote]
How can you begin to discuss something without defining it? There are many definitions such as: “God is love”, “God is energy”, “God is everything”, etc.
You can’t discuss something until you define it.
I don’t see it as bizarre.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And as I pointed out earlier, one could (and has) use the above logic to argue the God of the OT and NT are not one in the same.
[/quote]
If you take a historical look at the doctrine (and use your logic to argue that the OT and NT Gods are not the same), you find that the traditions for each of the three Abrahamic religions are really different, and that Christianity and Islam both really just nailed themselves atop the Jewish traditions: yes both Islam and Christianity claim them as their roots, but they both go back re-write the meaning, or literally re-write the text.
I would argue that Christianity is a Hellenistic religion, and shares many of the Hellenistic archetypes, and even the tone in, and use of, Greek smacks more of Aristotle than the Septuagint. And you have to remember that those who were involved in the dawn of Christianity were not reading a Hebrew Tanakh, but were writing based on the (mis)translated Greek Septuagint. And they wrote the books to proselytize not to Semitic peoples, but citizens of the Roman Empire. And it’s no coincidence they many more from the Hellenistic and Roman converted, than did Semitic followers of Abraham.
Similarly, Islam, while ostensibly claiming an Abrahamic root (the Arabs are the “other” children), the reality is that first converts, and Muhammad himself, were never Jewish. Allah in the pre-Islamic world, was just another pagan god.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve asked it before, but why do atheists have a theology, absolutes on what God must or must not be? Very bizarre.[/quote]
How can you begin to discuss something without defining it? There are many definitions such as: “God is love”, “God is energy”, “God is everything”, etc.
You can’t discuss something until you define it.
I don’t see it as bizarre.[/quote]
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. The atheist can not argue what the nature/identity of his God must be, since he doesn’t believe in his God–therefore, doesn’t believen in the nature/identity of his God. And not believing in the nature/identity of his God, how can he make absolute statesments about who God is? Such as “it’s the same God.” It’s dishonest. It’s arguing just to argue.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Push. Let me start by saying that I am a believer in case you thought otherwise. So my question is out of curiosity rather than trying to punch a hole in a belief. But you post doesn’t really address my question (if it was meant to in the first place). It only addresses the issue of communication between Eve and the serpent.
I was asking where the belief that the serpent was Lucifer, or Lucifer speaking through the serpent, as Genesis 3 never even mentions Lucifer or Satan. All I could come up with was Revelation 12:9 (among a few other verses in Revelation).
What are your thoughts on this?
[/quote]
I understand.
You do have to rely on it indirectly. The myriad of teachings about Satan throughout the Bible almost force one to believe the one possessing the serpent in Eden had to have been Satan. It could’ve been no one else if you stop and think about it. No other explanation makes any sense at all.[/quote]
I would agree about the teachings forcing you toward that conclusion.
However, lets following the line of thinking that things in the garden WERE different. If Adam and Eve could communicate with the beasts, it is entirely possible that the serpent was just a bad beast. The serpent was, in fact, punished by God for what it had done. Had it been Lucifer controlling a serpent, would that give cause to punish that beast directly? Obviously Lucifer fell out of Grace with God, but I haven’t seen where it says it was for tempting Eve.
[/quote]I believe the physical punishment of the serpent, i.e., forcing it to crawl on the ground was literal but it also carried symbolism.
Lucifer’s sin that got him cast out of heaven was NOT the tempting of Eve. Read the Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 accounts of Lucifer’s rebellion.
[/quote]
Ezekiel definitely makes some more sense of it. It does seem to put Lucifer in the garden. Even though he isn’t named, he is described-“you were anointed as a guardian cherub”.
Can you elaborate on the symbolism of the serpent’s punishment? Could the serpent have been a special kind of beast (more intelligent, etc.) or had a special relationship with Adam and Eve? And this is why he placed enmity between them?
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Remember, both Christianity and Islam stem from Judaism and just different interpretations of the same idea. What I don’t understand is that, as believers, how can you honestly say there are three “Gods” out there that really exist? I think what you are meaning to say is there are three “interpretations” of God out there, but all stem from the same source (Judaism’s God).
[/quote]
I do believe most of what you are saying here. However, stemming from the same source does not make the Gods the same.
Islam in no way believes that Jesus Christ IS God. Christianity does.
Many Jews believe in the Messiah but don’t believe Jesus is the Messiah. The difference is distinct though between that and what Islam teaches.[/quote]
If we treat Gods just as part of the religion (along with beliefs, traditions, etc), I agree. If we treat God as a universal entity responsible for creation though, I still have difficulty with accepting the idea of three of these.[/quote]
I would say then that either the Judaism/Christian Yahweh is God or the Muslim Allah is God. Who is correct? I can not say, but we will find out one day.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
Traditional, but specifically Catholic view. Read the Creed.
But, no, they can’t. Not if they’re trying to have an honest debate. Atheists don’t get to determine who/what God must be. Let me say it a bit better. They don’t get to make an argument for who/what God must be. Once they do, they’ve stopped participating honestly in the debate.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s arguing just to argue. [/quote]
You nailed it - he and Body are simply trying to trip someone up in order to validate their own conclusions. They jump from issue to issue in order to bait someone into an argument. Thye do not understand or choose to ignore the difference between debating an issue and arguing over an issue.
Lemme splain - Arguing: “I belive A” - (well you’re wrong) - “no, I really do believe it” - (well you can’t, because I believe B) - “well, I still belive A” - (your just ignoring the issue) . . .
Debating: “I believe A” - (well, I believe B, why do you believe A ) - " I believe A because of 3, C and Blue" - (oh, well, I believe B because of 3, C and Yellow) - “I see, why do you choose Yellow over Blue?” - and so on and so forth.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
So you are saying-“I don’t believe in God (or any god) but if there was one, he would be like this, not this”. Correct? This seems to be a “God of convenience” where you get to just pretend there is a God, and He gets to be whatever you want Him to be.
And this is assuming you are, in fact, an atheist.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve asked it before, but why do atheists have a theology, absolutes on what God must or must not be? Very bizarre.[/quote]
How can you begin to discuss something without defining it? There are many definitions such as: “God is love”, “God is energy”, “God is everything”, etc.
You can’t discuss something until you define it.
I don’t see it as bizarre.[/quote]
How can you define something that is beyond our comprehension. If you want us to make God fit in a tiny box you can not. We can only look at his word and catch a glimpse of who he is. The Old Testament shows what happens to humans who try to do it on their own. The New Testament shows what happens to humans when we rely on God’s grace through Jesus Christ. Might look like 2 different God’s to some, but it just shows me how big he truely is.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
Traditional, but specifically Catholic view. Read the Creed.
But, no, they can’t. Not if they’re trying to have an honest debate. Atheists don’t get to determine who/what God must be. Let me say it a bit better. They don’t get to make an argument for who/what God must be. Once they do, they’ve stopped participating honestly in the debate. [/quote]
First off, I don’t think they would try to define God. That’s what the theists do. So you’re correct in that aspect. But there can be no debate without a definition. I can’t just say “I believe in this” without defining what it is.
For example:
Say I belong to the “Penguin Political Party”. Someone asks why it’s better than “Camel Party”. Without a definition of what “Penguin Party” is, there can be no meaningful discussion or debate.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
So you are saying-“I don’t believe in God (or any god) but if there was one, he would be like this, not this”. Correct? This seems to be a “God of convenience” where you get to just pretend there is a God, and He gets to be whatever you want Him to be.
And this is assuming you are, in fact, an atheist.[/quote]
I am not an Atheist; I’m agnostic.
I’m confused on exactly what you’re asking.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
So you are saying-“I don’t believe in God (or any god) but if there was one, he would be like this, not this”. Correct? This seems to be a “God of convenience” where you get to just pretend there is a God, and He gets to be whatever you want Him to be.
And this is assuming you are, in fact, an atheist.[/quote]
well said
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve asked it before, but why do atheists have a theology, absolutes on what God must or must not be? Very bizarre.[/quote]
How can you begin to discuss something without defining it? There are many definitions such as: “God is love”, “God is energy”, “God is everything”, etc.
You can’t discuss something until you define it.
I don’t see it as bizarre.[/quote]
How can you define something that is beyond our comprehension. If you want us to make God fit in a tiny box you can not. We can only look at his word and catch a glimpse of who he is. The Old Testament shows what happens to humans who try to do it on their own. The New Testament shows what happens to humans when we rely on God’s grace through Jesus Christ. Might look like 2 different God’s to some, but it just shows me how big he truely is.[/quote]
How can you believe in something without even being able to say what it is?
If you had a kid and he asked what God is, what would you tell him?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
But…you had simians evolving (dying) for millions of years…then simian/human hybrids…then Neanderthals etc. and eventually POOF somehow, some way, somewhere the first man appears…and he commits sin…is condemned to death for it…and dies (after bearing human children)?
Now are you telling this first man’s father and mother who also died…did not commit sin? They died for some other reason?[/quote]
I don’t know whether the chicken or the egg came first. Man or his parents. Nor do I know when sin entered the world and the struggle began. I do know this, God created everything including man. God clearly made us differently than the other animals. I know sin entered the world through the choice of man.
I also know there were people around before Genesis was written and while it may an account of creation, it’s not exactely a first person rendition. It’s also meant for an audience 7000 years ago. If you were to start explaining evolution, science, biology, the universe, I am pretty sure you would have lost them.
Genesis is woven together from several stories. It has 2 creation stories, the second older than the first. I don’t think it was ever intended to be a factual account.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm[/quote]
Pat, do you believe in Jesus? If you believe in Jesus then you should believe in the Genesis account because Jesus mentions both the creation of man and Noah and the flood.
At Mark 10:6-9 Jesus states:
“However, from the beginning of creation 'He made them male and female. 7 On this account a man will leave his father and mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh’; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.”
In the verses mentioned above Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 where it states “He made them male and female” and he mentions “from the beginning of creation” which of course is the creation account in Genesis.
At Matthew 24:37-39 Jesus refers to the Noah and the flood account and paralells what happened in the days and years leading up to the flood with what will happened during the days and years during Jesus’ presence leading up to Armageddon.
Matthew 24:37-39 states:
“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”
It’s clear that Jesus believed in the Genesis account not only because he quotes specific verses from Genesis but he also had a first hand account because he was in heaven when both of the above accounts took place.
You are right that Genesis took place before Moses wrote it. The creation of Adam in Genesis took place about 2500 years before Moses wrote Genesis. And the flood event took place about 850 years before the writing in Genesis. Apparently, God told Moses either directly or through holy spirit about what took place from the beginning of creation up until Moses’ time.[/quote]
I do not think that Pat is saying that the Genesis did not take place.
I will say that Jesus quotes the Old Testament all the time. Why? Because he was talking to the Jewish people. These are the stories that they grew up on and understand. Just because he talks about it does not mean that it means literal, but could mean figuratively. Jesus uses Hyperbole all the time. Jesus also uses the term “I AM” which to a Jewish person means that he is God. Is he speaking literally or figuratively here?[/quote]
D, I don’t think you really understand the use of Jesus illustrations and the purpose of when he quoted scriptures. I’ll try to clarify this for you.
Jesus used illustrations when he was teaching something new to his listeners to paint a mental picture so they could better grasp what he was teaching. Most of his illustrations were of story length and had characters. Jesus generally drew his illustrations from the surrounding creation, from familiar customs of everyday life such as sheep and shepards, harvest, slaves, or fishing. Or from occasional happenings or not-impossible situations, and from recent events well known to his hearers. None of the famous illustrations such as the Wheat and the Weeds, the neighborly Samaritan, the prodigal son, the rich man and Lazarus do you see Jesus quote from the Hebrew scriptures. You can’t find any of these stories in the Bible so Jesus most likely made them up to help his listeners understand his teaching.
You’re using the wrong word when you say “figuratively.” When one speaks figuratively, the figure of speech or metaphoric statement in its entirety means something else and is not to be taken literally. Such as when someone says “I’m going to kill you” when you’ve upset that person. Jesus’ illustrations were not like this because when he used illustrations they represented a truth Jesus was trying to teach and if the listeners were able to understand what the illustration was teaching they were to take it literally. The characters, setting and story represented different parts of something literal. So Jesus spoke symbolically not figuratively. For example, the Wheat and the Weeds illustration mentioned at Matthew 13:24-30. Jesus explains what each part of the illustration means at Matthew 13:36-42. Another example is at Matthew 9:11-13 when Jesus was eating with with tax collectors and sinners and the Pharisees criticized him for doing so. Jesus told them that persons in good health do not need a physician but the ailing do. In this illustration Jesus was the physician and the ailing are the tax collectors and sinners. Even when he spoke in hyperbole such as at Matthew 7:1-5 which talks about removing a straw from someone’s eye when there is a rafter in your eye. The straw represents a small weakness or small sin and the rafter represents an even bigger weakness or bigger sin. So when one understood this they would get the sense that he should not judge or try to correct someone when he has a big glaring weakness that he needs to work on. Do you get what I’m trying to say?
Jesus quoted from the Bible because the people of his day were versed in the law and the Bible available at that time. As you stated in one of your post the Jewish religious leaders even had the Bible memorized. So when Jesus quoted from the Bible the listiners were more likely to believe what Jesus was saying the same way we hope people believe us when we quote scripture to back up a belief. When Jesus quoted from the Bible he did this usually to help the listeners discern that he just fulfilled a Bible prophecy, to condemn the hardhearted based on Bible prophecy or to explain why something must occur based on the passage he’s quoting. Jesus did not use any quotes from the Hebrew scriptures in his illustrations. At Mark 10:6-9 when Jesus quotes from the Genesis account he is answering a question about divorce; no illustration was used. At Matthew 24:37-39 when Jesus compares the days and years during his presence leading up to Armageddon with the days and years in Noah’s day leading up to the flood he does state it in an illustrative manner because he compares to things but this is unlike any of the illustrations I listed above and unlike any of the illustrations Jesus is famous for.
So when Jesus quotes from the Hebrew scriptures one should have more faith in the Hebrew scriptures as being still valid for today and inspired by God. The point I was trying to make to Pat was since Jesus quoted the two specific events Pat said were made up and not to be factual in his post if one has faith in Jesus then you should believe the two specific events Jesus referenced from the Hebrew scriptures as actual events and not moral stories or figurative stories as you stated.
I hope that helps.[/quote]
First, my questions were rhetorical. I wanted you to think about what you are saying.
Second, if you are going to take the Bible as 100% literal then you have to look at the verses as what they say. You can not pick and choose what fits your doctrine and what doesn’t and dismiss it. I have told you my reasoning for every verse you have put down. You may not like my reasoning, but it is. You just dismiss my verses as translation errors.
Third, you say that the parables were easy stories for the people to understand. I would like to argue the opposite. Jesus tells a parable the disciples do not understand what they mean. Jesus a lot of the times have to pull the disciples aside to explain to them what he is talking about. His parable about tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in 3 days. The disciples did not know the meaning until after the resurrection. This is when their eyes were open. All the gospels were written after the resurrection of Jesus, so by then they understood everything, but during the stories they did not. It is amazing when you see who Jesus is, God, your eyes are open and the entire Bible makes perfect sense.[/quote]
Sorry D that was not a rehtorical question. You said: “Just because he talks about it does not mean that it means literal, but could mean figuratively. Jesus uses Hyperbole all the time.”
You said today in one of your post that you weren’t certain if the creation and flood accounts
were true or allegory. You say that you’re a man of God and you believe in Jesus then why would not believe a direct quote Jesus made that references two earlier accounts in the Bible? Take the flood account for example. The flood account is way too specific for an allegorical moral story. No fictional moral story would give specific details such as the exact tree used to build the arc, how the arc was to be built, the exact size of the arc, the exact size of the windows on the arc and exactly how long it took for the flood waters to recede. A allegorical moral story would state: “Everyone was bad except Noah and his family so God told Noah to build a arc to survive a flood that was going to destroy all the bad people. Noah built the arc and his family survived the flood. So remember to be good like Noah.” At Matthew 24:36-39 when Jesus compares the time during his presence with the time before the flood, Jesus doesn’t say “rembember the Noah story.” Jesus gives details of how the people were living their life before the flood and parallels that with how people will live their life during Jesus’ presence. Again, too specific to be just a moral allegorical story.
D at no time did I pick and choose scriptures to fit my belief; you did that. When I explained a doctrine I did it thoroughly using many scriptures. When you explained a doctrine you used very little scriptures to do so. When you quoted scripture I used several scriptures to show that the scripture you quoted did not mean Jesus was God. For example, when you used John 10:30 where Jesus states that I and the father are one to prove that Jesus said he was God. I quoted John 17:20-24 where Jesus prays to his Father and ask him that he make ALL of his diciples ONE like he and is Father were ONE. So those verses clearly explain that ONE means united in mind and thought. On the other hand when I asked you to explain
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 which states that God subjected all things to Jesus except himself and that Jesus is going to subject himself to God all you could say was Jesus was being humble.
When I asked you to explain 1 Corinthians 11:3 where Paul states that the head of Jesus is God all you could say was Jesus was being humble. You said the same thing when I asked you to explain Matthew 23:20 where Jesus admitted to not having the authority to grant who will rule with Jesus in his kingdom but only his Father had the authority to grant this again you said Jesus was being humble. You didn’t use one scripture to back your explaination up.
I never said the parables were easy to understand for the people of that time. I said that they helped to paint a mental picture so the hearers could better grasp Jesus’ teaching. I used the wheat and the weeds illustration to show that Jesus had to later explain what each part of the illustration meant. So no not everyone grasped Jesus’ illustrations.
It’s amazing what one could learn once they learn what the Bible really teaches then the Bible will make perfect sense.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
Traditional, but specifically Catholic view. Read the Creed.
But, no, they can’t. Not if they’re trying to have an honest debate. Atheists don’t get to determine who/what God must be. Let me say it a bit better. They don’t get to make an argument for who/what God must be. Once they do, they’ve stopped participating honestly in the debate. [/quote]
First off, I don’t think they would try to define God. That’s what the theists do. So you’re correct in that aspect. But there can be no debate without a definition. I can’t just say “I believe in this” without defining what it is.
For example:
Say I belong to the “Penguin Political Party”. Someone asks why it’s better than “Camel Party”. Without a definition of what “Penguin Party” is, there can be no meaningful discussion or debate.[/quote]
If you don’t believe the Camel Party exists, how can you have a meaningful debate? How do you debate the particulars about something you don’t believe exists?
My bad. Neither can an agnostic. Same concept. If we know you don’t even believe your own statements (example, “A God wouldn’t do this. A God wouldn’t do that”) about who/what God is, it’s kind of a waste of energy to debate it.