misleading in the sense that you assume I didn’t use primary sources as well. I assumed your class looked at primary sources.
I didn’t criticize your study or methodology. I simply I said I put my faith in the primary sources which I’ve read and not in lectures or secondary materials. As I took it you where criticizing my study and calling IT inferior.
all primary sources used in class room or personal study usually come from a text book rather than the original letter/essay the primary author wrote.
I seriously doubt you read the entire notes of the nicean council. as well as Eusebius, Justin martyr. Or wonder why Marcion or many of the early “heretics” rewrote the original NT to suite their philosphy. Seriously we are talking about almost four centuries of history. to claim to have put your faith in primary sources is to imply that you have weighed all the evidence. Something I doubt happened in a college classroom.
I could be wrong you could be an avid student like myself who is always studying this. I will admit I have not read all the primaries mostly because I don’t read greek fluently. So I am forced to trust secondaries in many cases. As I am sure you are forced to as well.[/quote]
Uh, they were the actual primary sources. Some of it was excerpts, yes. I didn’t read everything in it’s entirety. And reproductions. I highly doubt you read many/any of the original scrolls in their entirety either. What I read was still primary sources because they are in the words of the individuals and participants. Letters from the Pope, St Augustine, and yes, the notes of Nicean council [if not the entire thing], etc…
Just wait a few hundred years from now… maybe less, when genetic science can take out “evil” tendencies from our genes. Already today, testing can be done on the unborn fetus to determine if the child would carry a number of different recessive genetic disorders. The parents would then have the choice to abort if they decide. Widespread debate on this hasn’t reached the U.S., but I’ve heard it on the radio a few months ago.
Anyways, I’m sure through the manipulation of genes, many mental disorders and tendencies can be taken away. Perhaps we can achieve Utopia this way. But then it wouldn’t be a free society anymore. Without evil how can we define good?
misleading in the sense that you assume I didn’t use primary sources as well. I assumed your class looked at primary sources.
I didn’t criticize your study or methodology. I simply I said I put my faith in the primary sources which I’ve read and not in lectures or secondary materials. As I took it you where criticizing my study and calling IT inferior.
all primary sources used in class room or personal study usually come from a text book rather than the original letter/essay the primary author wrote.
I seriously doubt you read the entire notes of the nicean council. as well as Eusebius, Justin martyr. Or wonder why Marcion or many of the early “heretics” rewrote the original NT to suite their philosphy. Seriously we are talking about almost four centuries of history. to claim to have put your faith in primary sources is to imply that you have weighed all the evidence. Something I doubt happened in a college classroom.
I could be wrong you could be an avid student like myself who is always studying this. I will admit I have not read all the primaries mostly because I don’t read greek fluently. So I am forced to trust secondaries in many cases. As I am sure you are forced to as well.
[quote
Uh, they were the actual primary sources.
[/quote]
Did I say they weren’t???
ah no this is what I said
“I assumed your class looked at primary sources.”
Congratulations you confirmed something I said in my post!
I said
" I will admit I have not read all the primaries mostly because I don’t read greek fluently."
meaning not all have been translated yet, or if they have I have not got to them yet.
[quote]
What I read was still primary sources because they are in the words of the individuals and participants. Letters from the Pope, St Augustine, and yes, the notes of Nicean council [if not the entire thing], etc…[/quote]
Great! I have not said you haven’t. So what is the point of this paragraph?
[quote]AMIRisSQUAT wrote:
The cornerstone of atheism rears its big logical head again.
I’ve stopped blaming the devil - he’s as non-existent as god.
Now this may have nothing to do with Headhunters thread but to me it does - so fuck off if you dont like it.
I asked my friend Howard Bloom how he became an atheist and his response changed me as well - Enjoy.
I realized I was an atheist at thirteen years old and it wasn’t a choice, it just happened. But no benevolent God would be so cruel. No benevolent God would create a cosmos with such pain. Any God so vicious would be one that we, as humans, would be obliged to oppose with every muscle and every cell.
And, in fact, whether there is a god or not it is our obligation to oppose the outrages and pains of this planet. Here’s something I wrote a while back.
Since there is no god, it is our job to do His work. God is not a being, he is an aspiration, a gift, a vision, a goal to seek.
Ours is the responsibility of making a cruel universe turn just, of turning pains to understandings and new insights into joy, of creating ways to soar the skies for generations yet to come, of fashioning wings with which our children’s children shall overcome, of making worlds of fantasy materialize as reality, of mining and transforming our greatest gifts–our passions, our imaginings, our pains, our insecurities, and our lusts.
This is the work of deity, and deity is a power that resides in us. - Howard Bloom
[/quote]
Amir, while I have contemplated an atheistic universe-and I think many “religious” individuals are afraid to do so because of where it might lead, I was never persuaded by contemplating the pain, fear and injustice that is in this world.
You and I both seem to regard the case presented as a evidence of evil. Maybe its just a million years of human evolution and the drive to protect our kids from all kinds of predators that causes us to be revolted to the point where we have come to call those things that make us feel like that “evil”.
Is the human sense of good and evil just the deepest buried insticts of our social psychology?
Is it our ability to have true empathy? Do we fear for ourselves?
See, I don’t think that the pain of the boy was “evil”. If he had suffered the same pain from a wild animal, or in a fire, or due to disease it would of course be somehow different. I don’t sense “evil” just because something terrible happened to a boy, but because it makes us witness to horrifically mutilated humans who could do this.
Just wondering what you thought. Why don’t we just call the assaulters “wild animals” or “inhuman.”
I will tell you that it makes me question, primarily because I personally want to “go medieval” on those assaulters right now, and given the chance I might.
Perhaps God is like a human body — errant cells pop up and the immune system snuffs them out. Trouble is, the ‘errant cells’ do damage before they are destroyed. Also, the immune system may have to be provoked into a response…kind of like why I started this thread.
[quote]lizard king wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Just like some people are filled with the Holy Spirit, some people are filled with the spirit of Satan.
Oh that is right, it is not those people’s fault that they raped and murdered the child-- Satan made them do it. Do you even know what the word satan means and how it originated? Evil is as evil does Forrest; everyone should assume responsibility for their actions. If it is proved that those worthless pieces of protoplasm actually committed the crime, then they should be publicly eviscerated. And no, before you jump to your assumptions, I am not an atheist; I am a baptized Southern Baptist with a golden ticket to Heaven.
[/quote]
Dude, none of use is smart enough to know whether we are atheist or not.
For all of you guys saying its a shitty plan, but Gods plan is not in are understanding. We are giving choices for a reason, we can make the right or wrong, he knows whats going to happen with the choice we make.
I agree that there is true mental illness and then there are people that are just plain evil. These people porbably had some mental stuff going on but were also just plain evil and deserve to die.
I don’t believe in Satan.
I believe in the same God that Albert Einstein believed in - there is probably some Primary Force that started, and perhaps even controls, the universe, but that Primary Force, call it God if you want, does not concern itself with nor intervenes in human affairs.
Events like this child molestation story strengthen my belief that God simply does not intervene in human events. We are on our own, left to our own intelligence and Free Will. There is no “God’s Plan.” Things happen, sometimes randomly. If God did have a plan, then there would be no need for Free Will. Indeed, you can only have one or the other - you either have God’s plan or Free Will. If Free Will is subject to God’s plan, then it is not true Free Will.
maybe you haven’t gone back and reread your posts after the heat of the moment but you are getting a little pissy.
Are you seriously trying to quantify your intelligence against jsbrooks on an internet forum?
Perhaps you are unaware of how it is coming across.
for other posts, . . . You can’t use the Dead Sea Scrolls as an example as you cannot believe that all that there is has been opened to the public.
There are many secret texts that will never be available to the public.
MEN created the Bible. As such it is full of flaws.
If there is a God he is personal and subjective to the individual.
Anyone can read all they can it doesn’t make you superior intellectually or spiritually. Understanding something is what makes knowledge valuable and useful.
misleading in the sense that you assume I didn’t use primary sources as well. I assumed your class looked at primary sources.
I didn’t criticize your study or methodology. I simply I said I put my faith in the primary sources which I’ve read and not in lectures or secondary materials. As I took it you where criticizing my study and calling IT inferior.
all primary sources used in class room or personal study usually come from a text book rather than the original letter/essay the primary author wrote.
I seriously doubt you read the entire notes of the nicean council. as well as Eusebius, Justin martyr. Or wonder why Marcion or many of the early “heretics” rewrote the original NT to suite their philosphy. Seriously we are talking about almost four centuries of history. to claim to have put your faith in primary sources is to imply that you have weighed all the evidence. Something I doubt happened in a college classroom.
I could be wrong you could be an avid student like myself who is always studying this. I will admit I have not read all the primaries mostly because I don’t read greek fluently. So I am forced to trust secondaries in many cases. As I am sure you are forced to as well.
[quote
Uh, they were the actual primary sources.
Did I say they weren’t???
ah no this is what I said
“I assumed your class looked at primary sources.”
Some of it was excerpts, yes. I didn’t read everything in it’s entirety. And reproductions. I highly doubt you read many/any of the original scrolls in their entirety either.
Congratulations you confirmed something I said in my post!
I said
" I will admit I have not read all the primaries mostly because I don’t read greek fluently."
meaning not all have been translated yet, or if they have I have not got to them yet.
What I read was still primary sources because they are in the words of the individuals and participants. Letters from the Pope, St Augustine, and yes, the notes of Nicean council [if not the entire thing], etc…
Great! I have not said you haven’t. So what is the point of this paragraph?
maybe you haven’t gone back and reread your posts after the heat of the moment but you are getting a little pissy.
Are you seriously trying to quantify your intelligence against jsbrooks on an internet forum?
Perhaps you are unaware of how it is coming across.
[/quote]
No I’m not pissy about anything. I have respect for both sides, and I am glad they are at peace with their opinion on it.
I have said I have no idea what he knows about the issues. so the quantifying idea falls short.
why not? Do you know that before the DSS the oldest copies of the hebrew mss. were from the 9th century? That when the dss was found and compared the shock to most who studied the text was not the differences, but how little had actually changed. which if you would like of copy of the Dss. Hebrew Bible/OT you can read it when you buy this book. Since the accuracy of the text was what I referring to in my post about the Dss. We can easily dismiss the unpublished texts since they are no weight in this discussion
The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the
First Time Into English
Such as? Or are you making a claim similiar to since the jfk files are locked up we can’t know who really killed him?
I thought the discussion was if the text was reliable.
Care to prove that? I have not claimed there is or isn’t a God, nor I have said one must believe what I believe.
good point… the problem is you assume that all the evidence that we have at this time has been reviewed before that decsion has been made. You have to read it before you can decide on it. Which brings me to a statement I made earlier.
I am constantly looking for “TRUTH”. I believe Christianity should be about the same thing.
With that I am trying to figure out the point of your post as well. You are making on my posts as if I am dogmatic about my view, or that I think I know more than JSbrook. I have for the record more than once said I don’t know what he knows.
when I did claim something I pointed out it was an assumption on my part, and I apologized in advance if I was wrong. So I have to ask where is this pissy attitude of mine when I am apologizing in advance if I am in error.
As for my last post there is no pissiness to it either. I was merely trying to figure out the point he was making, especially since alot of the post just repeated what I said earlier.
maybe you haven’t gone back and reread your posts after the heat of the moment but you are getting a little pissy.
Are you seriously trying to quantify your intelligence against jsbrooks on an internet forum?
Perhaps you are unaware of how it is coming across.
No I’m not pissy about anything. I have respect for both sides, and I am glad they are at peace with their opinion on it. [/quote]
You may say you are not getting pissy, but it is how you are coming across.
no it doesn’t. What I said did not have to involve jsbrooks, only you. There is no need for comparison when quantifying.
Do you purposely not understand what people actually type?
[quote]for other posts, . . . You can’t use the Dead Sea Scrolls as an example as you cannot believe that all that there is has been opened to the public.
why not? Do you know that before the DSS the oldest copies of the hebrew mss. were from the 9th century? That when the dss was found and compared the shock to most who studied the text was not the differences, but how little had actually changed. which if you would like of copy of the Dss. Hebrew Bible/OT you can read it when you buy this book. Since the accuracy of the text was what I referring to in my post about the Dss. We can easily dismiss the unpublished texts since they are no weight in this discussion
The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the
First Time Into English
Are you aware that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not privy to the public for decades? Are you aware that the interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls has actually in some cases been passed down from parent to child working on the same project? Are you aware that they have stated that the entirety of the Dead Sea Scrolls will not be for public observance, they say due to the condition of the scrolls making it impossible for them to replicate exact copies?
[quote]There are many secret texts that will never be available to the public.
Such as? Or are you making a claim similiar to since the jfk files are locked up we can’t know who really killed him?[/quote]
The Vatican has publicly acknowledged secret archives.
[quote]MEN created the Bible. As such it is full of flaws.
I thought the discussion was if the text was reliable.[/quote]
When were we in a discussion? But regarding what you are saying, I do believe human fallibility could have an impact on a documents integrity. As I also believe that the picking and choosing of texts also should be considered when referring to the Bible as a complete and perfect text. It is a conglomeration of books that were chosen by wealthy privileged men.
[quote]If there is a God he is personal and subjective to the individual.
Care to prove that? I have not claimed there is or isn’t a God, nor I have said one must believe what I believe.[/quote]
My statement is its own proof. My God, if I have one, would not be yours due to my own personal values, experiences and prejudices.
and again, do you read yourself? “Care to prove that?” Fella get a grip.
You assumed everything in my post was for you alone. You didn’t even consider that the remarks I made where I state, “as for the other posts.” I was adding to the general discussion.
[quote]Anyone can read all they can it doesn’t make you superior intellectually or spiritually. Understanding something is what makes knowledge valuable and useful.
good point… the problem is you assume that all the evidence that we have at this time has been reviewed before that decsion has been made. You have to read it before you can decide on it. Which brings me to a statement I made earlier.[/quote]
My statement is sound. It is applicable in all areas. You state what I assume and you are incorrect. Do you always do that?
good for you. Everyone needs a hobby, interest or activity.
[quote]With that I am trying to figure out the point of your post as well. You are making on my posts as if I am dogmatic about my view, or that I think I know more than JSbrook. I have for the record more than once said I don’t know what he knows.
when I did claim something I pointed out it was an assumption on my part, and I apologized in advance if I was wrong. So I have to ask where is this pissy attitude of mine when I am apologizing in advance if I am in error.[/quote]
Reread your posts and I would hope it will come across to you as it did so evidently when I read them.
[quote]As for my last post there is no pissiness to it either. I was merely trying to figure out the point he was making, especially since alot of the post just repeated what I said earlier.
[/quote]
I don’t know if you would be the right person to judge what I perceive.
I got what jsbrooks was saying. He expressed his opinion as an individual interpretation, mentioning that he had put thought and time into the molding of that opinion.
In case you really can’t get a perception of the pissyness that comes across, it is there. At least in my reading. You don’t seem to be adding to the discussion but you do seem to want to validate your education, your vast knowledge, your tireless search for the truth, your most wonderful research that none of us could compare to.
“The Problem of Evil” is the offical name for this question, or the Epicurean riddle, (If there is a God that is omniscient and benificent why is there evil/suffering,etc?) and it’s a pretty good beginning for an argument against the existence of God. I think it goes like this:
If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist
(From the Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I suppose the title of the thread is in fact does SATAN exist but as we’ve seen, he plays hockey.
You may say you are not getting pissy, but it is how you are coming across.
[/quote]
How many times do I have to state my intentions?
You said
“Are you seriously trying to quantify your intelligence against jsbrooks on an internet forum?”
If doesn’t have to be about JSbrook then why did you use him? I read what you wrote and responded it to it.
Do you purposely bring people into the conversation and then say it isn’t about them?
I brought up the dss. because of the Hebrew Bible which has been printed, and compared. The hidden text are of no concern to my point. Unless they contain parts of the Hebrew text which they don’t. So it would not exclude the Dss from my point.
I never said they didn’t. I asked you if you are saying this is a smoking gun.
You responded to a post of mine that was about that subject. I went with the context/post that was used.
You do know that 22 of the 27 NT books weren’t even discussed about they were readily accepted. They were also widely quoted from as early as 95 AD by Clement I
As for weathly people choosing them. You do know that before Constantine the Church was persecuted, so the appeal to the weathly wouldn’t have been very stong. You also know the Diocletian 303 AD declared that the holy books of the Christians be destroyed. Which books would he know to desroy unless a great deal of them had already been accepted.
Your statement appears to be a logical fallacy. We can both be incorrect about God, but we can’t both be correct. For instance if God is whatever we want him to be then the crime of murder, and molestation are accepted by the God of the people that commit these things and God is Amoral at that time.
Yes, I read that your explination is lacking.
[quote
You assumed everything in my post was for you alone. You didn’t even consider that the remarks I made where I state, “as for the other posts.” I was adding to the general discussion.
[/quote]
Hard not to assume when you address me only, and I am the only person who mentioned the DSS.
If you don’t read all the material on a subject how can you understandit? If you were blind and I said I was going to show you an elephant, and all I did was put your hand on his trunk. Would you be able to tell everything about that elephant? You have to have all the facts before you make a decision. Which requires reading as much of the material as possible.
I would encourage you to do the same since your tone appears to being changing in this post. I understand that written word can and often is taken the wrong way. It lacks the advantage of tone, expression, and emotion. I don’t know how many times I have to state that I am not “pissy”, or how many times I apologize in advance if I was taking something the wrong way.
Funny, I never used the word judge, and I never claimed I knew what you perceived.
I got what he was saying too. I never tried to sway him. I never told him his sources were inferior, I never ridiculed what he has done.
Kettle meet pot.
I’m not adding to the conversation? hmm I conversed with several other posters on various topics, some ranging on the origins of Satan to into the hebrew religion, and some on the text. I fail to see how that is not adding.
Your post on the hand…
you have only added that I can’t use the DSS. and that the vatican has secret documents. I can’t figure out why the dss. can’t be used since we have copies of the part I was citing.
As for the secret vault. I am still waiting for you to tell me what your point is. If all you are saying is it is secret, then you are arguing from silence.
[quote
That is how it is coming across.
[/quote]
I will remember that when I read your next post. Since you seem to be following suite.
I will however give you the benefit of the doubt. since this is written and I don’t have the advantage of tone, expression, and emotion. To guide me in understanding your intent.
Perhaps you need to consider that freewill is part of his plan. While God may know what we may do that does not change our freewill to decide at the moment of decision.
God could be like a giant calcualtor calculating all the different number of variations of freewill, however in the end it will happen the way He wants it to. In addition perhaps you have not considered the fact that God may not intervene at all points in time, and in fact may let things happen to bring greater good out of it.
For example woth the aid of the mass media perhaps legislation will become tougher on these sick monsters and people will become more aware. Just my 2 cents. Responses are welcome.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Of course he exists. He plays hockey.[/quote]
Funny note on that - I think it was in 2001 that he was on the most penalized team in hockey, but he himself had the fewest penalty minutes in the league.
Apparently Satan really is behind all the bad things in the world.
Like slashing.
To those who actually are, STOP BLAMING GOD AND SOME DEVIL! It’s people like you who are holding back moral progress.
[quote]Winger11 wrote:
“The Problem of Evil” is the offical name for this question, or the Epicurean riddle, (If there is a God that is omniscient and benificent why is there evil/suffering,etc?) and it’s a pretty good beginning for an argument against the existence of God. I think it goes like this:
If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist
(From the Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I suppose the title of the thread is in fact does SATAN exist but as we’ve seen, he plays hockey.[/quote]
If the (material) universe ends in a singularity, and evil is bound to the material universe, then it will never have existed.
[quote]Winger11 wrote:
“The Problem of Evil” is the offical name for this question, or the Epicurean riddle, (If there is a God that is omniscient and benificent why is there evil/suffering,etc?) and it’s a pretty good beginning for an argument against the existence of God. I think it goes like this:
If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist
(From the Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I suppose the title of the thread is in fact does SATAN exist but as we’ve seen, he plays hockey.[/quote]
Also, God may have all power, but not all ability. A machine can have all of the power in the universe but lack the specific capabilities to do certain specific things.
You may say you are not getting pissy, but it is how you are coming across.
How many times do I have to state my intentions? [/quote]
I wasn’t trying to interpret your intentions.
[quote]no it doesn’t. What I said did not have to involve jsbrooks, only you. There is no need for comparison when quantifying.
You said
“Are you seriously trying to quantify your intelligence against jsbrooks on an internet forum?”
If doesn’t have to be about JSbrook then why did you use him? I read what you wrote and responded it to it. [/quote]
I said your intelligence.
[quote]Do you purposely not understand what people actually type?
Do you purposely bring people into the conversation and then say it isn’t about them? [/quote]
again, you misunderstand what is typed.
[quote]Are you aware that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not privy to the public for decades? Are you aware that the interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls has actually in some cases been passed down from parent to child working on the same project? Are you aware that they have stated that the entirety of the Dead Sea Scrolls will not be for public observance, they say due to the condition of the scrolls making it impossible for them to replicate exact copies?
I brought up the dss. because of the Hebrew Bible which has been printed, and compared. The hidden text are of no concern to my point. Unless they contain parts of the Hebrew text which they don’t. So it would not exclude the Dss from my point.[/quote]
you referenced the Dead Sea Scrolls as a resource. It is an incomplete and homogenized resource. The public only knows what the project wants them to know. The Dead Sea Scrolls been tooled. My point being, it is a manufactured truth.
I don’t need a book to know what is right for me.
[quote]The Vatican has publicly acknowledged secret archives.
I never said they didn’t. I asked you if you are saying this is a smoking gun. [/quote]
I actually am not certain what you mean by smoking gun.
you asked me to prove the Vatican had secret texts.
My point being, we don’t know what we don’t know.
[quote]When were we in a discussion?
You responded to a post of mine that was about that subject. I went with the context/post that was used. [/quote]
That was me commenting on your post, not discussing with you.
[quote] But regarding what you are saying, I do believe human fallibility could have an impact on a documents integrity. As I also believe that the picking and choosing of texts also should be considered when referring to the Bible as a complete and perfect text. It is a conglomeration of books that were chosen by wealthy privileged men.
You do know that 22 of the 27 NT books weren’t even discussed about they were readily accepted. They were also widely quoted from as early as 95 AD by Clement I
As for weathly people choosing them. You do know that before Constantine the Church was persecuted, so the appeal to the weathly wouldn’t have been very stong. You also know the Diocletian 303 AD declared that the holy books of the Christians be destroyed. Which books would he know to desroy unless a great deal of them had already been accepted.[/quote]
Wealthy have had all the power and advantages for all times. Wealth has influenced policies, morals, and religious institutions in all times.
I believe power corrupts and I would think those in the Council of Nicea were influenced in thier choices by their personal prejudices and circumstances. We only know of books that they mentioned. We will never know of texts, writings, beliefs that they shut down or destroyed without public notice.
[quote]If there is a God he is personal and subjective to the individual.
Care to prove that? I have not claimed there is or isn’t a God, nor I have said one must believe what I believe.
My statement is its own proof. My God, if I have one, would not be yours due to my own personal values, experiences and prejudices.
Your statement appears to be a logical fallacy. We can both be incorrect about God, but we can’t both be correct. For instance if God is whatever we want him to be then the crime of murder, and molestation are accepted by the God of the people that commit these things and God is Amoral at that time. [/quote]
My beliefs are my own. They need nothing else to stand on. My God is my God. No one can say it is false.
You can believe me to be incorrect but your believing so does not diminish my God or my belief. That is what makes my statement true.
[quote]and again, do you read yourself? “Care to prove that?” Fella get a grip.
Yes, I read that your explination is lacking.[/quote]
Not true. But now we would just devolve into, “is to, is not” kinda thing.
[quote]You assumed everything in my post was for you alone. You didn’t even consider that the remarks I made where I state, “as for the other posts.” I was adding to the general discussion.
Hard not to assume when you address me only.[/quote]
when I said about the other posts, that was directed at, “other posts,” not just you.
[quote]Anyone can read all they can it doesn’t make you superior intellectually or spiritually. Understanding something is what makes knowledge valuable and useful.
good point… the problem is you assume that all the evidence that we have at this time has been reviewed before that decsion has been made. You have to read it before you can decide on it. Which brings me to a statement I made earlier.[/quote]
My statement is sound. It is applicable in all areas. You state what I assume and you are incorrect. Do you always do that?
Truth is only the truth as we know it today.
Your own statement of reading everything makes it an impossibility for you to ever know what is your truth if you are going to base your truth on reading everything. That won’t ever happen.
I can find truth for me.
[quote]Reread your posts and I would hope it will come across to you as it did so evidently when I read them.
I would encourage you to do the same since your tone appears to being changing in this post. I understand that written word can and often is taken the wrong way. It lacks the advantage of tone, expression, and emotion. I don’t know how many times I have to state that I am not “pissy”, or how many times I apologize in advance if I was taking something the wrong way.{/quote]
doesn’t matter by now does it?
[quote]I don’t know if you would be the right person to judge what I perceive.
Funny, I never used the word judge, and I never claimed I knew what you perceived.[/quote]
you said, “you assume.” You have no idea what I assume.
[quote]I got what jsbrooks was saying. He expressed his opinion as an individual interpretation, mentioning that he had put thought and time into the molding of that opinion.
I got what he was saying too. I never tried to sway him. I never told him his sources were inferior, I never ridiculed what he has done.[/quote]
sure… you textual critic snob you.
[quote]In case you really can’t get a perception of the pissyness that comes across, it is there. At least in my reading.
Kettle meet pot.[/quote]
you got me there, I probably am coming across that way.
[quote] You don’t seem to be adding to the discussion but you do seem to want to validate your education, your vast knowledge, your tireless search for the truth, your most wonderful research that none of us could compare to.
I’m not adding to the conversation? hmm I conversed with several other posters on various topics, some ranging on the origins of Satan to into the hebrew religion, and some on the text. I fail to see how that is not adding.
Your post on the hand…
you have only added that I can’t use the DSS. and that the vatican has secret documents. I can’t figure out why the dss. can’t be used since we have copies of the part I was citing.[/quote]
How I read it was you trying to get into a pissing contest. It is all that perception thing.
No. I am not arguing anything about secret texts. I am stating that basing a belief on a tooled document wherein knowledge perhaps pertaining to its foundations are not shared, it might not be a document with the highest integrity.
To comment on the actual thread topic, Satan the ideal, was created by the Church. He was not mentioned as an evil being and punisher of the sinners until much later.
I am open to the belief in God, Gods, other spiritual beliefs. I have reservations about some of the scriptures which is why I try to stay open.
I don’t know if Satan is used to try to scare people into doing good “or else.” Jews don’t do Heaven or Hell because you should be your best self on earth because it is the right thing to do, not because you fear punishment.
If there is a good and wonderful God then I question why is there evil.
But then I also question why you have to accept Jesus as a savior? I have met wonderful Bhuddists who truly lead exemplary lives and I find it hard to believe they are going to burn in Hell for their beliefs. And what about natives in Papua New Guinea? Are they going to live their lives and burn because they may not have even heard of God?