Jump to content
270soft Forum
DebateGod

I am legitimate

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

2. How does that prove God is not loving?  Man brought sin, death, and destruction into the world with their rebellion.  Man made that choice.  And despite that, God set a plan for redemption so all those believe can be saved from eternal destruction despite man not deserving anything.  If that's not loving then I don't know what is.

I'm assuming you're talking about Adam and Eve eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, but before they ate the fruit they couldn't have known that eating the fruit was an evil thing to do, yet God still allowed them to eat the fruit and proceeded to punish them for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I thought you said god doesn't interfere in the lives of people"

Asking for and receiving guidance from God doesn't abrogate a person's free will. Why do you think otherwise?

Christians don't abide by the food codes in Leviticus - are you completely unaware of this?

God's rules (such as the 10 commandments) are meant to help people. Don't murder, don't steal, and so on.

Hell is typically understood in Christianity as separation from God, and typically this is understood as self-imposed isolation (the human chooses to be separate). God loves us and wants to be with us, but certain actions have the result of separating us from him, and these actions we call sins.

Eternal damnation is simply being eternally separated from God. Dante portrays the idea well with Satan, ensconced in his own icy self-preoccupation at the lowest level of Hell.

"Because the Bible is as per it's own words is god breathed truth, and these experiences are unfalsifiable."

The Bible is a collection of around 70 texts, written by different authors at different times. No author in the Bible claims all of the Bible is 'God breathed truth', because there was no Bible when the authors were writing their texts - it was assembled afterwards. Even if an author did claim that, however you interpret the term 'God breathed truth', that's not *evidence*, it's rather a claim for which you have to find evidence. The evidence, if it exists, can at least in part be found in the experiences that informed those texts, or impinge upon the claims in those texts.

I just laid out how to test various spiritual experiences - simply reiterating that they are 'unfalsifiable' isn't a response.

If you're not genuinely interested in these ideas, you can have the last word.

It seems that our mysterious DebateGod fellow has disappeared. I initially responded because it sounded like he genuinely wanted to have feedback on some of his ideas, and was open to countervailing ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, admin_270 said:

"I thought you said god doesn't interfere in the lives of people"

Asking for and receiving guidance from God doesn't abrogate a person's free will. Why do you think otherwise?

Christians don't abide by the food codes in Leviticus - are you completely unaware of this?

God's rules (such as the 10 commandments) are meant to help people. Don't murder, don't steal, and so on.

Hell is typically understood in Christianity as separation from God, and typically this is understood as self-imposed isolation (the human chooses to be separate). God loves us and wants to be with us, but certain actions have the result of separating us from him, and these actions we call sins.

Eternal damnation is simply being eternally separated from God. Dante portrays the idea well with Satan, ensconced in his own icy self-preoccupation at the lowest level of Hell.

"Because the Bible is as per it's own words is god breathed truth, and these experiences are unfalsifiable."

The Bible is a collection of around 70 texts, written by different authors at different times. No author in the Bible claims all of the Bible is 'God breathed truth', because there was no Bible when the authors were writing their texts - it was assembled afterwards. Even if an author did claim that, however you interpret the term 'God breathed truth', that's not *evidence*, it's rather a claim for which you have to find evidence. The evidence, if it exists, can at least in part be found in the experiences that informed those texts, or impinge upon the claims in those texts.

I just laid out how to test various spiritual experiences - simply reiterating that they are 'unfalsifiable' isn't a response.

If you're not genuinely interested in these ideas, you can have the last word.

It seems that our mysterious DebateGod fellow has disappeared. I initially responded because it sounded like he genuinely wanted to have feedback on some of his ideas, and was open to countervailing ideas.

I apologize for my absence

Anyway The Bible does claim it was God given

Numbers:15:28 - Moses said, "With this [i.e what will happen to Korah] you shall know that the Lord sent me to do all these deeds, for I did not devise them myself."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DebateGod said:

I apologize for my absence

Anyway The Bible does claim it was God given

Numbers:15:28 - Moses said, "With this [i.e what will happen to Korah] you shall know that the Lord sent me to do all these deeds, for I did not devise them myself."

I think he means 16:28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DebateGod said:

I apologize for my absence

Anyway The Bible does claim it was God given

Numbers:15:28 - Moses said, "With this [i.e what will happen to Korah] you shall know that the Lord sent me to do all these deeds, for I did not devise them myself."

Correction 16:28 Thanks @NYrepublican

for some reason I can't edit it (I'm using Firefox)

Anyway, any comment @admin_270 @WVProgressive

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DebateGod

That passage isn't claiming the Bible is inerrantly true, or anything like that. It's Moses claiming he was sent by God. These are totally different. Again, the Bible didn't exist in the time of Moses, nor of any of the Biblical authors. It was compiled later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@DebateGod

That passage isn't claiming the Bible is inerrantly true, or anything like that. It's Moses claiming he was sent by God. These are totally different. Again, the Bible didn't exist in the time of Moses, nor of any of the Biblical authors. It was compiled later on.

I disagree Korah accused Moses of making up the commandments for his own benefit and for his family's benefit (Like giving Aaron the priesthood) Moses is saying that that isn't so and that it's from God implying that it's inerrantly true.

The torah explicitly says it existed at the time of Moses

   ויכתב משה את התורה הזאת And Moses wrote this Torah...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NYrepublican

Even if Moses is claiming the Torah (here I am referring to the Pentateuch) is inerrantly true (which is to push the text), the Torah is a small piece of the Bible.

Again, the Bible didn't exist in the time of Moses. He couldn't have been claiming the Bible as a whole is inerrantly true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@NYrepublican

Even if Moses is claiming the Torah (here I am referring to the Pentateuch) is inerrantly true (which is to push the text), the Torah is a small piece of the Bible.

Again, the Bible didn't exist in the time of Moses. He couldn't have been claiming the Bible as a whole is inerrantly true.

So in your opinion what exactly is falsifiable in the Bible?

I think we have a source which can reasonably be understood as meaning that the Torah at bare minimum is true and God-Given. Meaning if anything's inaccurate with the biblical account it is a sign of it's not being God-Given.There are issues like

1.Verses in Genesis contradicting what we Know namely The world not being 6000 years old, What's the firmament exactly,Snakes losing their legs long before Adam ,Noah's flood and civilization continuing when it ostensibly happened,origin of languages etc.

2.While there was an exodus 600,000 is way too high plus there's no evidence of a 40 year wandering in the desert (we've looked for a century to no avail)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably most things in the Bible are falsifiable. That is, evidence can be marshaled for or against the claims in it.

"Meaning if anything's inaccurate with the biblical account it is a sign of it's not being God-Given."

No, if there's an inaccuracy, it means that part isn't a reflection of God's knowledge. Again, there's a spectrum from 'divinely inspired' to 'direct, inerrant transcription'.

A Christian can easily hold that there are central parts of the Bible and more peripheral parts. For example, was Jesus an historical figure? That is probably a pretty important question. Do the Gospels accurately capture the general themes of Jesus' teachings? Did Jesus resurrect from the dead?

Then there are more peripheral issues. For example, did Jesus have full-blooded brothers and sisters? Did the ancient Israelites actually wander for 40 years, or was it some other significant amount of time? And so on.

So, there's a range of importance in the claims in the Bible. Some are central and I think Christianity makes or breaks it on them. Others aren't at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Probably most things in the Bible are falsifiable. That is, evidence can be marshaled for or against the claims in it.

"Meaning if anything's inaccurate with the biblical account it is a sign of it's not being God-Given."

No, if there's an inaccuracy, it means that part isn't a reflection of God's knowledge. Again, there's a spectrum from 'divinely inspired' to 'direct, inerrant transcription'.

A Christian can easily hold that there are central parts of the Bible and more peripheral parts. For example, was Jesus an historical figure? That is probably a pretty important question. Do the Gospels accurately capture the general themes of Jesus' teachings? Did Jesus resurrect from the dead?

Then there are more peripheral issues. For example, did Jesus have full-blooded brothers and sisters? Did the ancient Israelites actually wander for 40 years, or was it some other significant amount of time? And so on.

So, there's a range of importance in the claims in the Bible. Some are central and I think Christianity makes or breaks it on them. Others aren't at all.

 

Anthony, what exactly do you mean by divinely inspired and what makes the Bible anymore so than say the Bhagavad Gita?

Also how would one determine which was introduced by humans and which not?

What about inaccuracies in statements ostensibly made by God? One example would be the zoologically inaccurate statements in Leviticus when discussing what Animals are Kosher

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DebateGod

By 'divinely inspired' I mean coming from God. From the perspective of a Christian, the central importance of the Bible is that it reveals God's character most fully in the person of Jesus. The Bhagavad Gita does not do this.

You would determine what's error the way you determine what's error anywhere else - by evidence, reasoning, experience, and so on.

I have a hard time finding the importance, from a Christian perspective, of possible zoological errors in Leviticus. How does that impinge on the central themes of Jesus' teachings and life? It seems to me it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@DebateGod

By 'divinely inspired' I mean coming from God. From the perspective of a Christian, the central importance of the Bible is that it reveals God's character most fully in the person of Jesus. The Bhagavad Gita does not do this.

You would determine what's error the way you determine what's error anywhere else - by evidence, reasoning, experience, and so on.

I have a hard time finding the importance, from a Christian perspective, of possible zoological errors in Leviticus. How does that impinge on the central themes of Jesus' teachings and life? It seems to me it doesn't.

Jesus's authority rested on him coming to fulfill the law meaning if the laws given by God are inaccurate then his claims fall apart.

" For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law[.]" (From the sermon on the mount saying that he had come to fulfill the law not destroy it)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does Jesus mean by 'the law'? Jesus routinely taught that 'the law' meant the spirit animating and leading to various codifications - not the codifications themselves. See his views on what is appropriate to eat, how to act on the sabbath, and so on.

His authority came from God (or as Christians believe, he was God made flesh - he in some sense is identical to God). It was *because* he came from God that he was going to fulfill the law, and by fulfill the law he meant intensify and transform our reasoning about it - again, go to the spirit of the law, to what the law *really is*. So, an 'eye for an eye' becomes 'love those who hate you and pray for those who persecute you', 'do not murder' becomes 'do not be angry', 'do not commit adultery' becomes 'do not lust', and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

What does Jesus mean by 'the law'? Jesus routinely taught that 'the law' meant the spirit animating and leading to various codifications - not the codifications themselves. See his views on what is appropriate to eat, how to act on the sabbath, and so on.

Question on that: the "spirit" of the law seemed to all but destroy the law as codifications that were clearly in it's spirit Christians don't follow. One example is the prohibition on eating blood and other dietary laws which is in the spirit of reminding Jews that animals are not to be killed willy-nilly (Hunting for sport is really low among Jews) and are creatures of God.The "spirit" interpretation seems to intentionally or not abolish huge swaths of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that this issue becomes fairly technical, hinging on what is meant exactly by 'abolish'. But yes, I would agree that practically speaking, with Jesus large parts of the codifications of the Mosaic law no longer apply. This is part of why Christianity spread so rapidly to the Gentiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another issue I see

In Hebrews 10:5 Jesus ostensibly quotes psalms 40 to be speaking of "a body you prepared for me". The issue is that quote doesn't appear or anything remotely similar in Psalms 40 plus it'd make little sense in context and David is clearly not speaking about Jesus in that psalm anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why are we talking about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ido said:

why are we talking about this?

Why are you opposed to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am not opposed to it, just asked why

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2018 at 4:52 PM, DebateGod said:

Another issue I see

In Hebrews 10:5 Jesus ostensibly quotes psalms 40 to be speaking of "a body you prepared for me". The issue is that quote doesn't appear or anything remotely similar in Psalms 40 plus it'd make little sense in context and David is clearly not speaking about Jesus in that psalm anyway.

What point are you making here? Hebrews is traditionally attributed to St. Paul. Is your point that St. Paul might have written something wrong? If so, what conclusion do you think follows from that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

What point are you making here? Hebrews is traditionally attributed to St. Paul. Is your point that St. Paul might have written something wrong? If so, what conclusion do you think follows from that?

Well if he's misquoting that badly it casts doubts on his reliability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Casts doubts on St. Paul's reliability?

Yes because it's a pretty egregious mistake which he had a reason for including.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×