Do You Believe in God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
482

[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
How do we know how accurate the writings of Aristotle or Plato are?

Those writings do not contend to be the word of the Eternal Creator; a “rule book” or guide on how we should live our lives and deal with one another.

There is a great amount of evidence that the Bible is far more accurate in many ways.

There is doubt that many parts of the Bible are accurate. There is a town named Jerusalem that exists. There was a king named Herod that throned during the Roman occupation, etc.

There is no evidence, though, for it being all true from cover to cover.[/quote]

That’s funny I found the opposite to be true. It’s hard to believe that we disagree huh?

[quote]
Or did he fall down and explode when he dropped from the rope?

The entire verse reads “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”

I don’t see mention of a rope or even a hanging. And “falling headlong” doesn’t, to me, bring up the image of someone dropping from a rope. I also understand “in the midst” to refer to the aforementioned field. There usually a rather vexing lack of trees in fields to hang oneself’s from.

Aren’t you making up details and interpreting rather loosely so that the Bible stays “perfect” and non-contradictory in your mind?[/quote]

Does “head long” also mean “head first”?

Hey, I don’t really care how you want to spin it.

Here’s yet another possibility:

"The Greek word translated “hanged himself” is the word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one’s self as with great emotion or grief.

That’s from one of the many Christian web sites. Now I could go into greater detail here, but why? You’ll just refute it with things read on atheist sites. And then I’ll refute those things with things found on Christian sites. And, then it will be your turn, then my turn again. I don’t know, maybe I’m just too old for this nonsense. Who really wins here? No one gets converted, no Christian that I know of would ever lose their faith because of it. And besides what could we possibly say to each other on this topic that we have not already said in previous threads?

Anyway, the way I see it skeptics have it made. They really can’t lose at least in the short term. Many claim that the early church made everything up and obviously not to be believed. Then when two different writers accounts don’t match exactly they hop on the other side of the fence and say “see, LIES all LIES!” The stories are not exact.

(Chuckle)

Hey, pookie you’re a big boy now. If you don’t want to believe in God it’s your right. Of course I know you are wrong. But like I said, it would take someone much smarter and more persuasive than I to convince you. Absent that special person you need a life altering experience in oder to have even the possibility of believing.

Is that life altering experience going to take place on T-Nation? Um, I highly doubt it my friend.

So, I’m going to check out here and give you the last word. One thing we can agree on for sure: You’re funnier, smarter and a far better writer than I am. Oh, and probably stronger too. :slight_smile:

Take care my friend, and while I know you don’t think you need it, I’m still going to pray for you.

Zeb

483

[quote]Spry wrote:
The definition of God is a being who is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Benevolent.

[/quote]

Oh, I’m gonna have to disagree with that definition.

The Ancient Greek gods were none of the above. They had very human foibles. Zeus was an incorrigible womanizer, who was nonetheless terrified of his jealous wife. Hermes was a liar and a cheat. Aphrodite was a whore who slept with nearly all of the gods, and a shitload or mortals, too.

Ares, the god of war, as a perfect example of the opposite of your definition. First off, he was cruel and vengeful, anything but benevolent, and Eris, goddess of chaos, was even worse. This pair was not omnipresent, but rather zipped around in a chariot visiting the various hotspots around the globe, stirring up enmity and ensuring that the body counts were maximized. As for omnipotent, well, Ares was immortal, but that didn’t prevent him from getting wounded from time to time, at which he howled like a bitch and ran home to to his mommy, who bandaged him up and dabbed divine mercurochrome on his boo-boos, scolding him all the while for being the worst of her children.

Or perhaps you meant the definition of the Christian god.

But even still, we run into problems, because the Christian god is the same, after all, as the Jewish and Muslim gods.

And the Old Testament is chock full of stories demonstrating the decided malevolence of God. My favorite of these stories is in 2nd Kings, when the prophet Elisha is strolling along, minding his own business, and a crowd of little boys start teasing him, yelling “hit the road, baldie!”

Elisha then does what any of us would have done in that situation: he curses the boys in the name of the Lord.

Except because he is a prophet of God, the curse has some punch behind it. God promptly sends two female bears to tear forty-two of the little boys to pieces.

This is a benevolent god? One who sends bears out to maul children for calling a bald man bald?

Of course, perhaps it wasn’t God who sent them at all. Perhaps it was only a coincidence that the bears attacked at the very moment that Elisha uttered his curse. This would imply that Elisha was a false prophet.

Or, most likely of all, a few mangy stray dogs happened to bite a few kids on the ankles as they were milling around Elisha, and this story, over centuries of retelling, got better and better until it reached its present form, at which time it was written down.

Malevolent god, false prophet, or false story. You decide which.

484

Omnipotent
God:-confused-Where are you?!?
Adam:-naked-I’m hiding in the bushes…
[Genesis]

Omnipresent
Instead of being able to speak to his boss directly, the elderly Moses was forced to climb a mountain.
[Deuteronomy]

485

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Omnipotent
God:-confused-Where are you?!?
Adam:-naked-I’m hiding in the bushes…
[Genesis]

Omnipresent
Instead of being able to speak to his boss directly, the elderly Moses was forced to climb a mountain.
[Deuteronomy][/quote]

Great, isn’t he?

486

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Omnipotent
God:-confused-Where are you?!?
Adam:-naked-I’m hiding in the bushes…
[Genesis]

Omnipresent
Instead of being able to speak to his boss directly, the elderly Moses was forced to climb a mountain.
[Deuteronomy][/quote]

Yep, many contradictions, therefore the bible is false or at best fictional.

Varqanir, of course I meant the christian concept of God. The story is false.

Religion has no logical argument except for that fact that organised religion is a form (and it seems to me a bloody good one) of control of the masses.

487

[quote]Spry wrote:
The definition of God is a being who is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Benevolent.

If he is benevolent then he would not allow us to wander into sin for he also has the power and the knowledge that we will sin before we do and how to guide us into not sinning.
[/quote]

Maybe he’s not benevolent. The Bible certainly doesn’t say that God is benevolent. If you remove the expectation of benevolence does your argument still hold up?

488

[quote]Spry wrote:

Religion has no logical argument except for that fact that organised religion is a form (and it seems to me a bloody good one) of control of the masses.[/quote]

If Karl Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses, I wonder what he would have said about network TV.

489

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Spry wrote:

Religion has no logical argument except for that fact that organised religion is a form (and it seems to me a bloody good one) of control of the masses.

If Karl Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses, I wonder what he would have said about network TV.[/quote]

Indeed.

Television Evangelists are the pinnacle of evil.

490

[quote]rsg wrote:
I think people should keep their shit to themselves - want to belive in god? Fine, just don’t fucking knock on my door at 7am on a Sunday morning telling me bullshit. Do atheists wake YOU up at stupid hours telling you that god isn’t real? NO.
[/quote]

Some atheists do

491

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Spry wrote:
The definition of God is a being who is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Benevolent.
Oh, I’m gonna have to disagree with that definition.

The Ancient Greek gods were none of the above. They had very human foibles. Zeus was an incorrigible womanizer, who was nonetheless terrified of his jealous wife. Hermes was a liar and a cheat. Aphrodite was a whore who slept with nearly all of the gods, and a shitload or mortals, too.

Ares, the god of war, as a perfect example of the opposite of your definition. First off, he was cruel and vengeful, anything but benevolent, and Eris, goddess of chaos, was even worse. This pair was not omnipresent, but rather zipped around in a chariot visiting the various hotspots around the globe, stirring up enmity and ensuring that the body counts were maximized. As for omnipotent, well, Ares was immortal, but that didn’t prevent him from getting wounded from time to time, at which he howled like a bitch and ran home to to his mommy, who bandaged him up and dabbed divine mercurochrome on his boo-boos, scolding him all the while for being the worst of her children.

Or perhaps you meant the definition of the Christian god.

But even still, we run into problems, because the Christian god is the same, after all, as the Jewish and Muslim gods.

And the Old Testament is chock full of stories demonstrating the decided malevolence of God. My favorite of these stories is in 2nd Kings, when the prophet Elisha is strolling along, minding his own business, and a crowd of little boys start teasing him, yelling “hit the road, baldie!”

Elisha then does what any of us would have done in that situation: he curses the boys in the name of the Lord.

Except because he is a prophet of God, the curse has some punch behind it. God promptly sends two female bears to tear forty-two of the little boys to pieces.

This is a benevolent god? One who sends bears out to maul children for calling a bald man bald?

Of course, perhaps it wasn’t God who sent them at all. Perhaps it was only a coincidence that the bears attacked at the very moment that Elisha uttered his curse. This would imply that Elisha was a false prophet.

Or, most likely of all, a few mangy stray dogs happened to bite a few kids on the ankles as they were milling around Elisha, and this story, over centuries of retelling, got better and better until it reached its present form, at which time it was written down.

Malevolent god, false prophet, or false story. You decide which.[/quote]

Quiz time: What was the name of Adam’s first ‘wife’? ;D

492

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Spry wrote:
The definition of God is a being who is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Benevolent.

Oh, I’m gonna have to disagree with that definition.

The Ancient Greek gods were none of the above. They had very human foibles. Zeus was an incorrigible womanizer, who was nonetheless terrified of his jealous wife. Hermes was a liar and a cheat. Aphrodite was a whore who slept with nearly all of the gods, and a shitload or mortals, too.

Ares, the god of war, as a perfect example of the opposite of your definition. First off, he was cruel and vengeful, anything but benevolent, and Eris, goddess of chaos, was even worse. This pair was not omnipresent, but rather zipped around in a chariot visiting the various hotspots around the globe, stirring up enmity and ensuring that the body counts were maximized. As for omnipotent, well, Ares was immortal, but that didn’t prevent him from getting wounded from time to time, at which he howled like a bitch and ran home to to his mommy, who bandaged him up and dabbed divine mercurochrome on his boo-boos, scolding him all the while for being the worst of her children.

Or perhaps you meant the definition of the Christian god.

But even still, we run into problems, because the Christian god is the same, after all, as the Jewish and Muslim gods.

And the Old Testament is chock full of stories demonstrating the decided malevolence of God. My favorite of these stories is in 2nd Kings, when the prophet Elisha is strolling along, minding his own business, and a crowd of little boys start teasing him, yelling “hit the road, baldie!”

Elisha then does what any of us would have done in that situation: he curses the boys in the name of the Lord.

Except because he is a prophet of God, the curse has some punch behind it. God promptly sends two female bears to tear forty-two of the little boys to pieces.

This is a benevolent god? One who sends bears out to maul children for calling a bald man bald?

Of course, perhaps it wasn’t God who sent them at all. Perhaps it was only a coincidence that the bears attacked at the very moment that Elisha uttered his curse. This would imply that Elisha was a false prophet.

Or, most likely of all, a few mangy stray dogs happened to bite a few kids on the ankles as they were milling around Elisha, and this story, over centuries of retelling, got better and better until it reached its present form, at which time it was written down.

Malevolent god, false prophet, or false story. You decide which.[/quote]

It’s 2 Kings 2:23-24
“And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.”

They were mocking the ascension of Elijah (which took place in the earlier verses), that’s the
“go up, go up” reference. And in the Hebrew, the words translated to read “little children” actually means “young man”. The passage describes young men mocking a prophet of God and basically denying God.

The Greeks made their gods with human failings. They were a bunch of drunks and perverts. In this way, those that worshiped them could make the leap that the gods were as messed up as the people were. Sort of justified their bad behavior. As for making up the God of the bible, why make up a God that demands such reverence, holiness and perfection? It would be much easier to make up a god that has low expectations. That way a person would be free to be as much of a screw up as he/she wants to be.

493

Lilith…she was a bit uppity so she got cock blocked out of the bible and doomed to obscurity hehehe…

494

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Quiz time: What was the name of Adam’s first ‘wife’? ;D [/quote]

Lilith.

495

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Then when two different writers accounts don’t match exactly they hop on the other side of the fence and say “see, LIES all LIES!” The stories are not exact.[/quote]

When the Bible is claimed to be the inerrant divine word of God, it’s rather tempting to point out the various contradictions and incongruities found in the texts.

Although you didn’t address the point, I was genuinely interested about your thoughts pertaining to the various situations where the Bible is silent. Why is there nothing precise about slavery (other than support)? Torture? Child upbringing? Men/women relations and rights? etc. Why is what little there is about those topics completely in line with culturals mores of 2000 years ago?

I find those “missing” morals a lot more indicative of human origin than any discrepancies or agreements in the text.

Well, you don’t know. You believe and are utterly convinced, but you don’t know. No more than I can know.

I’m satisfied with being honest with myself. I could claim to believe (in fact, I could often debate the Christian side a lot better than many Christians, all modesty aside) but I’d be lying. If there is a God, I’ll take my chances with honesty being a better policy than fake belief.

You never know. I remember that discussing the concept of sin with Stellar_Horizon made me think a bit differently about a few things. Didn’t make me a believer nor do I buy in the concept of “Original Sin”, but it did change my thinking about a few things.

Right. Let’s decide God’s existence with a benching contest. :slight_smile:

Actually, benching is not my best lift… I was going to suggest pull-ups, but I don’t think that’s the right exercise to challenge you with.

Go for it. I’m sure it makes at least one of us feel better.

496

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Lilith…she was a bit uppity so she got cock blocked out of the bible and doomed to obscurity hehehe…[/quote]

…until she got those roles in “Cheers” and “Fraser.”

Poor Adam.

497

"The Purpose of Man on Earth

Why did the Creator God put man on the earth? For God’s ultimate supreme purpose of reproducing himself–of recreating himself, as it were, by the supreme objective of creating the righteous divine character ultimately in millions unnumbered begotten and born children who shall become God beings, members of the God family.

Man was to improve the physical earth as God gave it to him, finishing its creation (which sinning angels had deliberately refused to do) and, in so doing, to restore the government of God, with God’s way of life; and further, in this very process finishing the creation of MAN by the development of God’s holy, righteous character, with man’s own assent.

Once this perfect and righteous character is instilled in man, and man converted from mortal flesh to immortal spirit, then is to come the incredible human potential–man being born into the divine family of God, restoring the government of God to the earth, and then participating in the completion of the creation over the entire endless expanse of the universe! That incredible potential of man will be fully explained in the pages that follow in this volume. God shall have reproduced himself untold millions of times over!

So, on the sixth day of that re-creation week, God (Elohim) said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26).

Man was made to have (with his assent) a special relationship with his Maker! He was made in the form and shape of God."

http://www.thetrumpet.com/sites/mysteryoftheages/index.php?view=book&id=63&gclid=CMWi6uDggpICFQJEPAod5ixz9w

Happy to 'splain things to you peones, all ya gotta do is ask!! ;D

498

[quote]electric_eales wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
I would like to bring this discussion back down to my level if I may…

Remember if there is a god he watches you wank, even the naughty ones where you play with your butthole a little bit

Well, if He didn’t intend that, He should’ve made our arms shorter and our dicks and buttholes devoid of pleasure-center nerves.

Who are we to argue with His design decisions?

God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least the lazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scratchings that are good for you thats all we want for fucks sakes, is that too much to ask for?

I think it is 6000 years.

Errr. nope sorry it was written 6 days, and there is no other way of interprting it to bring the bible into line with 21st century logic and rational thinking, it is stated 6 days in the bible and 6 days it is
[/quote]

No, he sat on his ass for 6000 years after the 6 days.

499

[quote]rugbyhit wrote:

They were mocking the ascension of Elijah (which took place in the earlier verses), that’s the “go up, go up” reference. And in the Hebrew, the words translated to read “little children” actually means “young man”. The passage describes young men mocking a prophet of God and basically denying God. [/quote]

Wow. What a conveniently standardized explanation. By remarkable coincidence, I found your explanation presented practically verbatim on several Christian websites.

Okay. My turn.

First: Little boys.

The phase in Hebrew is ne’arim k’tanim. The word na’ar by itself means “a youth” or “a boy.” You can find the same word in Lamentations 5:13: “The young men have borne the mill, and the boys have stumbled under the wood.” It’s instructive that the writer of Lamentations has taken the the trouble to distinguish the boys from the young men. The Hebrew word for “young men” in this verse is bakhurim, whereas the word used for “boys” is ne’arim. It seems clear enough that the two terms are not interchangeable.

Now, the second word in our phrase, k’tan. This means “little” or “diminutive.” Solomon used the word when talking about those pesky little foxes (shualim k’tanim) who were getting at his grapes in Song of Solomon 2:15. It wasn’t enough for the author of 2nd Kings to identify Elisha’s taunters by their boyhood (as opposed to their young manhood), he wanted to drive home the point that these boys were small. Hence the use of k’tan.

So we have a group of ne’arim k’tanim, “little boys” swarming out of to taunt Elisha. Not a gang of tough 17-year-old juvenile delinquents.

Second: “Go up.”

Inasmuch as the only witness to Elijah’s supposed ascension into heaven was Elisha himself, and Bethel was only his second stop after Jericho, I find it impossible to believe that anyone in Bethel knew about it… even assuming that I believed that Elijah actually did ascend into heaven, and that 2nd Kings is a true and accurate account of the event.

You (or rather, the Christian source you are parroting) are implying that the news of Elijah’s fiery whirlwind exit from this world had already had made it to Bethel, ahead of Elisha, the event’s only eyewitness, who never even told anyone the manner of his master’s disappearance (only that they could look all they wanted, but they’d never find him), and that there was a gang of youths just waiting for Elisha to get there so that they could tell him to ascend into heaven in like fashion. Right?

Balderdash.

The verse says that Elisha “went up from thence unto Bethel.” Surely you noticed the phrasing? He went up from Jericho. Bethel is situated in the hills north of Jerusalem. Its elevation is higher than that of Jericho. In order to reach Bethel from Jericho, one must ascend. In other words, one must go up.

Most likely, the kiddies were simply telling him to keep right on going up that road, which would lead him away from their city, and taking a cheap shot at his hairless dome in the bargain.

For which they paid with their young little lives.

500

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
.[/quote]

V,

Your breadth of knowledge always amazes, informs, and entertains me.

Off topic, but what the hell do you do for a living and how/why do you know all of this “stuff.”?

My stab in the dark is that you are retired military/cia turned professor in a strange and foreign land.

Am I close?

Not trying to pry, just curious.

Carry on :slight_smile:

501

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
rugbyhit wrote:

They were mocking the ascension of Elijah (which took place in the earlier verses), that’s the “go up, go up” reference. And in the Hebrew, the words translated to read “little children” actually means “young man”. The passage describes young men mocking a prophet of God and basically denying God.

Wow. What a conveniently standardized explanation. By remarkable coincidence, I found your explanation presented practically verbatim on several Christian websites.

Okay. My turn.

First: Little boys.

The phase in Hebrew is ne’arim k’tanim. The word na’ar by itself means “a youth” or “a boy.” You can find the same word in Lamentations 5:13: “The young men have borne the mill, and the boys have stumbled under the wood.” It’s instructive that the writer of Lamentations has taken the the trouble to distinguish the boys from the young men. The Hebrew word for “young men” in this verse is bakhurim, whereas the word used for “boys” is “ne’arim.” Clearly the two terms are not interchangeable.

Now, the second word in our phrase, k’tan. This means “little” or “diminutive.” Solomon used the word when talking about those pesky little foxes (shualim k’tanim) who were getting at his grapes in Song of Solomon 2:15.

So we have a group of ne’arim k’tanim, “little boys” swarming out of to taunt Elisha. Not a gang of tough 17-year-old juvenile delinquents.

Second: “Go up.”

Inasmuch as the only witness to Elijah’s supposed ascension into heaven was Elisha himself, and Bethel was only his second stop after Jericho.

You (or rather, the Christian source you are parroting) are implying that the news of Elijah’s fiery whirlwind exit from this world had already had made it to Bethel, ahead of Elisha, the event’s only eyewitness, who never even told anyone the manner of his master’s disappearance (only that they could look all they wanted, but they’d never find him), and that there was a gang of youths just waiting for Elisha to get there so that they could tell him to ascend into heaven in like fashion. Right?

Balderdash.

The verse says that Elisha “went up from thence unto Bethel.” Surely you noticed the phrasing? He went up from Jericho. Bethel is situated in the hills north of Jerusalem. Its elevation is higher than that of Jericho. In order to reach Bethel from Jericho, one must ascend. In other words, one must go up.

Most likely, the kiddies were simply telling him to keep right on going up that road, which would lead him away from their city, and taking a cheap shot at his hairless dome in the bargain.

For which they paid with their young little lives.[/quote]

First, your assumption that I must have found my explanation through plagiarism is false. You can disagree with my explanation, that’s fine, but I take exception with your insinuation that I copied my rebuttal from an existing force. The fact that you found relatively the same statement doesn’t surprise me. If I find “the sky is blue” everywhere on the internet and I repeat it in some form, does that make the statement wrong?

Now, your interpretation of the phrase ne’arim k’tanim. The phrase is used several times throughout when referring to :a 40 yr old man, a 28 yr old man and a 39 yr old man. I’ll let you figure out who they are since you’re the only one who is a “real student” of the bible. K’tanim also means insignificant and unimportant. Ne’arim is used to describe both new born children and young men. And before you accuse me of plagiarizing…I do use reference material to study, so if my obviously correct definition of ne’arim k’tanim is too close to what you might find in a concordance…it’s because I used one.

The prophets in Bethel knew that Elijah was to be raptured, as well as in Jericho. There is also no mention of time passage between the rapture and when the young men denied it. So you’re argument that news could not have reached Bethel is mute.

Even your bald head reference is a little off. In this culture, even men with hair were mocked with this phrase.

And yes, Jericho is lower in elevation than Bethel. But the mocking phrase “go up” and the resulting mauling follows the the same pattern throughout the OT, mock a prophet of the Lord and wham-o. So I doubt very much that telling Elisha to take a hike was what caused the resulting maul.

How come you’re picking on the mauling and not the other miracles that happened in these verses?