I agree that the bible is nothing close to any divinely inspired work but is the agenda driven ramblings of a bunch of chauvinistic pigs that lusted for power and control.
Yes but if you scroll up several examples of "hate" have been listed. I can always offer another if you like. The point being made was that the emotions of "hate" and "anger" both expressed by Yahweh are inconsistent with this "divine being’s" alleged state of omniscience. You can’t have your cake and eat it to.
No I was not speaking to you directly but only making a generalized statement based on where the topic had wandered off to since it was initially begun. I actually did post an example of an unfulfilled prophecy however if that’s what you wanted.
The bible essentially says that non-believers should be condemned to hell. The OT basically says the only good non-believer (or pagan) is a dead one. Is that the "direction" you are looking for? Choose your own course.
Oh but Conrad you forget that humans are god's pet project (even though he attempted to drown us all) and he gave them "dominion over the earth" to destroy and overpopulate at their leisure.
Because historically it has been demonstrated to be quite difficult to discuss politics or religion when someone is threatening to run you through with a sword...
Well that’s just it; he's a cruel, evil, jealous, morally bankrupt deity. Clearly, this has been shown by several passages posted thus far. I’m not making any excuses but simply illustrating the evidence. I’m not going to say "well they deserved it." Yahweh clearly states in several passages that he is a "jealous god." All Aaron did was make a golden calf and tell the people to take off their clothes and dance around naked. God then punishes them mercilessly for following their divinely appointed religious leader.
I actually have not cracked a bible physically in years. It drove me nuts when I had to study it as a course in school along with several other creation mythologies....
And why did god decide just to target that particular serial killer? Why didnt he let anyone know about Charles Manson (he was a Christian) or Son of Sam or any of those other ones? Why this guy? Does he only rat out atheist killers?
She knew of him? Hmm. Yeah, find the story. I’m just saying from the point of view of the police, all they would have is this woman who was attacked by a guy that she knew. Then she suddenly knows where all of these other bodies are located. That alone would be suspicious to them. The most logical interpretation of those details would be she knew him better than she was letting on, something happened between those two and she knew about these other murders. That may have been the reason he tried to get rid of her. To shut her up. That’s why I need to see all the details.
Alright, find a link for the story if you can. That way I can read what happened. Or as you say, are we totally going on her word? There would have to be some sort of reporting on a story like that if she was able to give the authorities the location of these bodies. She probably would have been considered a suspect in all honesty or having had some involvment and she turned him in.
Hmm. But we hear these kinds of stories fairly often on talk shows and what not. I heard one almost identical to that on Montel Williams....People can live through all kinds of bodily injury and trauma. We don’t know if he did not hit one of her major arteries or internal organs or even if he did, it takes a LONG time to bleed out. People have been known to get back up and walk around after a severe head wound or stabbing. Drugs can have this effect on people also. I’m not saying that happened in this woman's case, but of course you have heard police stories about assailants on PCP and that they will get up and walk after having a full clip unloaded into them.
Yes I’m assuming it came from an apologetic website.
It’s not a matter of "not accepting it." You didn’t explain the contradictions. Did you read my post? Modern Christian scholars reject this idea not because it is difficult to understand but because it cannot be meaningfully expressed. The doctrine cannot be stated in any way that is free from contradictions. It is impossible for Jesus to have been perfect man and perfect God at the same time, for this would mean that he was finite and infinite at the same time, that he was fallible and infallible at the same time. This cannot be.
They are because the only passage that you supplied that was actually from the bible (and not simply just conjecture) on the part of the apologetics was open to interpretation as noted.
Theologians of the current day. Only evangelical Christians tend to still buy into the notion of "biblical inerrancy."
What the creed denies is also quite significant. The creed was formulated in response to the claims of various early Christian groups, and so includes clauses that deny the beliefs of those groups. In response to the Arians who believed that Jesus was not God, the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) decreed that he was fully God.
That passage is open to interpretation. Did Jesus die by the grace of god or apart from god? “Although almost all the surviving manuscripts state that Jesus died for all people ‘by the grace of God’ (CHARITI THEOU) a couple of others state, instead, that he died ‘apart from God’ (CHORIS THEOU). Heb 2:9 appears originally to have said that Jesus died ‘apart from God’, forsaken, much as he is portrayed in the Passion narrative of Mark’s Gospel…..There is also the question of why these words came to be changed…. One explanation is that the scribes who were not altogether satisfied with what the New Testament books said modified their words to make them more clearly support orthodox Christianity and more vigorously oppose heretics, women, Jews, and pagans.”
19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
This is the very next passage. Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. Hrmmm.
But how could Jesus be with God in the beginning as this verse says, if, as the Watchtower teaches, Jesus was created by God? And how could Jesus be "a god" and yet be with God during the creation, if God was speaking truthfully?
Okay here you are simply supplying another passage stating that Jesus is god but still not addressing the contradiction (or why it is there). Here is another passage which denies that Jesus is God.
Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
And another passage where Jesus clearly states that he is NOT god and his father is "greater than him."
"My Father is greater than I."
.
But are those passages not in conflict with one another?
This is actually a decent attempt at an explanation from an apologetist. The only problem I have with it is it is not based on any passages actually taken from the bible. It sounds as if they are trying to conjure up an excuse for why the bible contradicts itself several times.
“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
I took the liberty of quoting the actual passage. Did Jesus die "by the grace of God" or "apart from God"? There are good reasons for thinking that the latter ... was the original reading of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Clearly that is open to interpretation. I’m not rejecting their claim but it also sounds a bit like they are trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
"Modern Christian scholars reject this idea not because it is difficult to understand but because it cannot be meaningfully expressed. The doctrine cannot be stated in any way that is free from contradictions. It is impossible for Jesus to have been perfect man and perfect God at the same time, for this would mean that he was finite and infinite at the same time, that he was fallible and infallible at the same time. This cannot be."
If I had to make a determination to my own satisfaction based on the bible, I would declare that Jesus existed but was a human and not divine in any way. In fact similar to the Buddha.
That’s up to you. The ball is in your court obviously. I also mentioned the "god factor." If a body was raised from the dead, every religious sect in the known world would attempt to claim responsibility and announce that it was "their god." That is, if the phenomena occurred outside of human control, i.e. no human present to perform such a miracle.
I would think time and circumstance and who is performing the miracle (human or not). Those would be rational considerations.
All I ask is that you READ my posts clearly. I would appreciate it. Oh, and one other question I need to ask. If as you claim, these examples that you have given (the 8 minute mark baby and the old lady) clearly substantiate your positive assertion that a god (of some determination) exists, then why do we still have Atheists and Agnostics on the face of the earth and why do their numbers grow daily?
As explained previously, a person can be resuscitated MUCH later IF they are frozen or their body temperature is significantly reduced. Was that unclear? I am stating in order for it to "defy medical science" wouldn’t it have to indeed accomplish that feat? Those were your own words.
See last post.
Again see last post. You mentioned a baby that was revived after 8 minutes. Hardly proof. I never changed my criteria and don’t understand what you mean by that at tall.
See last post. I stated that my criteria would be a body that had been clinically deceased LONGER than all known medical accounts and STILL revived. Not a cadaver that has been frozen. This was all made very clear in my last post unless you just didn’t bother to read it. I’m not sure? It’s perplexing.
Exactly.
"Breaking any recorded medical records for length of time that someone was clinically dead. That would fall into the realm of "defying medical science" as you stated."
Precisely. If medical science recognized the occurrence and has witnessed it before and has a physiological explanation, can you thusly explain why it would still be considered "supernatural” and substantiate the existence of “some god”?
I never "changed criteria." I asked you to offer evidence that fell outside of the range of physiological conditions such as hypothermia or extreme cold. You only offered a baby that was revived after 8 minutes and we know this to be quite possible.
I was unaware you did not understand. Perhaps now you have read both posts?
I asked you to locate that article on the old woman as I wanted to see what had occurred there exactly. Any luck finding that?
Okay you seem to attribute infants being resuscitated after 8 minutes as being a “supernatural” occurrence in some respect and I don’t. My mom is a retired labor and delivery nurse and she would also beg to differ on that account. They often would be forced to “bag the babies” and breathe for them if they were born clinically dead. They some times called this a “jump start.”
You can look it up online. I’m not certain. That would be important and also what explanations medical science had to offer and what the exact circumstances had been. All of these factors are relevant in substantiating the legitimacy of something like this. Wouldn’t you agree?
But the contradictions were directed at you on two different threads and then you claimed that they were never even brought up. I gave you the option of choosing whichever contradiction you wanted. You refused and so I chose "Is Jesus God."
krimsa Forum Posts (1,345)
You are sweet. Na, Ive been around but tryign to focus on two or three threads. Im gonna get my hair cut today I think. 
RE: Does God Hate?
I agree that the bible is nothing close to any divinely inspired work but is the agenda driven ramblings of a bunch of chauvinistic pigs that lusted for power and control.