Teachings of Jesus - Sermon on the Mount

[S.SubZero]

You are correct. The modern American church is guilty of what is called the "seeker-sensitive" movement, and the only part read on Sunday is "topical preaching," such as topics of God's love and happy thoughts. This is an attempt to be "sensitive" to "seekers," who might stroll in on a Sunday morning, so they don't want to preach the tough parts.

So then you admit that Christianity, like a used car, can be easily sold if you only point out the good parts. Religion can't sell itself on the whole, it's required to trim away parts that may scare people off. Of course, determination of what gets trimmed and how much relies solely on the person who wants *their* particular version to be what people learn. If there's a problem.. hey it was mistranslated!

The Bible is not one book, it is 66 "books" by over 40 authors, in multiple languages. "Inconsistencies" are actually corroborative of the factuality of the Bible.

To fall back on what I just said, I'm sure I could easily say something, which is presented "factually" in the Bible, and you would insist that it's not factual at all.

In a court of law, if there are 6 witnesses to a crime, each will give testimony. If all of them said the same story word for word, it would be fishy, to say the least. But if they all reveal different facts from different perspectives, even some that appear to be "inconsistent," they always are reconcilable, because the source is always the same. The fact that there are differences in accounts is actual an argument used to corroborate the Bible, not disprove it.

The Bible should be a special case, as it's supposedly being divine inspired. If God was directly interacting with the 6 witnesses, and telling them the exact details, then all six had *better* say the same thing!

 

You seem to be implying that God tells different people different things.

 

Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy- "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist"

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2005/...ruse/index.html

You see, Ruse is a philosopher of science and, to use his phrase, an "ardent evolutionist." He stops a crucial degree or two short of declaring himself an atheist

He contradicts even himself. Tho I see no source for your quote.

Lawrence Krauss, physicist - "[Dawkins] should have continued to play to his strengths"

He spoke on the Beyond Belief 2006 thing I watched. He's a bit more accepting of religion existing (whereas Dawkins is far less accepting) and he prefers to tread lightly. It's no big surprise that not all atheist or agnostic people, especially people in positions of big exposure, are not exactly rallying behind him. Going against religion is scary. Religious people can be very abusive, verbally and physically, if you get on their bad side. Krauss plays the "No I.. well he can say what he wants but it's not what *I* would say" card, which may be what he is required to do.

 

He said that the book of "Hebrews" was written by Paul of Tarsus. That is basic elementary New Testament 101: Paul didn't write Hebrews. Everyone knows that, and nobody would try and say that Paul wrote it for even a moment.

Really?

http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/W...ote-Hebrews.htm

The conclusion of the matter is this: It seems clear from both the external and the internal evidence that the apostle Paul is the most likely candidate to be the author of the Book of Hebrews.

http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/heb/who.htm

It is considered that Paul wrote it to the Hebrews and he wanted them to read it without the baggage of his name. Jews would have rejected the book coming from Paul. So he deliberately omitted it.

http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-pro-tra...sciple-john.htm

Actually, the earliest tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews.

Even Google has some input on the matter:

Results 1 - 10 of about 266,000 for paul wrote hebrews. (0.05 seconds)

If there is a God, and there is only one true God, why would anyone be saved by worshiping a different, fake God?

Because the people worshipping the fake God (or any) were convinced by a very good used car salesm... I mean preacher.

 

For God, the punishment for evil is separation from him. He is pure good, and cannot be in the presence of evil.

In the Bible he "supposedly" initiates a flood and wipes out the entire population of earth save for Noah, his family, and some animals in a very, very large boat that might have been the Doctor's TARDIS. I don't know where the 'pure good' of this occurs. That's just one spot where I'm very confused on the whole good/evil thing. God does things in the Bible that are pretty much the epitome of evil.

 

http://WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com/ (totally random, I do love this site)

 

Oh, and obligatory youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=y3VAEYEG53w

[3nigma]

http:/WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com/ (totally random, I do love this site)

Oh, and obligatory youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=y3VAEYEG53

Each of these have been thoroughly, systematically, and exhaustively rebutted.

 

You can find everything here:

http://brainisignorant.blogspot.com/2008/0...l-amputees.html

http://brainisignorant.blogspot.com/

 

The conclusion of the matter is this: It seems clear from both the external and the internal evidence that the apostle Paul is the most likely candidate to be the author of the Book of Hebrews.

It's very funny that you went through all the effort of finding those miscellaneous pages that actually do purport that Paul wrote Hebrews, and copy and pasted all the little quotes from each.

 

With a simple Google search of "Hebrews," the first pages that all pop up say the exact opposite. Each of those pages that you found are the equivalent of, "Of course it's true, I read it on the internet!" One of the pages you linked even at the end said that it was NOT likely Paul, which I found particularly funny.

 

If we must go into off-topic details, I'll simply spell it out. Every letter that Paul ever wrote, he began by saying it was from him. Every letter without exception. This is not true of other authors, such as John, but of Paul this is without exception. Hebrews is not written by Paul.

 

Also, the Greek vocabulary employed in Paul's letters versus Hebrews is different, whereas the vocabulary in all of Paul's letters is consistent. Hebrews is not written by Paul.

 

Also, Paul often cites passages of the Old Testament in his writings. The letter to the Hebrews often cites passages from the Old Testament, but in a totally different manner. Paul's citations of the Old Testament are consistent in all of his writings, but Hebrews is not. Hebrews was not written by Paul.

 

Here's the bottom line. The fact that you are even defending Dawkins' statement that "Hebrews" was written by Paul is a perfect example of what you earlier described as "religious." Here is your quote:

Religion overlays common sense and human instincts with a pretend story to explain it all, and then tries to wrestle those senses away.

You have gone against all scholarship, and common sense, to defend your religion of Dawkinsism. You have found obscure sources to "corroborate" your point of view, which are honestly laughable. You are trying to wrestle the facts away, when you literally don't even know them!

 

Just relax and breathe a little, your feathers are getting ruffled too much. None of this is real anyway, right?

 

So then you admit that Christianity, like a used car, can be easily sold if you only point out the good parts.

You only read and quoted half of my point =).

 

I said that this is not what historical or biblical Christianity does, this is a modern fault of North American Christianity. This is not true of the church in other nations, and this was not true of the North American church a generation or two ago.

 

Again- you are correct. Modern, North American Christianity has become a religion of B.S. However, this empty shell posing as Christianity has nothing to do with true, historic, New Testament Christianity.

 

In that respect, you are incorrect. Normal Christianity (non-American-21st-century-Christianity) has nothing to do with what you are describing. You are describing the people that Christians can't stand, because they water-down everything, as you point out. It is referred to as "Christless Christianity."

 

The Bible should be a special case, as it's supposedly being divine inspired. If God was directly interacting with the 6 witnesses, and telling them the exact details, then all six had *better* say the same thing!

Again, this is another example of simply misunderstanding the Bible, Christianity, and what they teach.

 

The Bible, and Christianity, do not teach what is called the "Oral Dictation Theory," which is what you describe. God did not sit down next to the biblical authors and whisper word-for-word what to write. The Bible, and Christianity, teach what is called the "Verbal Plenary Theory," which is that the authors wrote the text, which has all the culture and flavor of each of their individual backgrounds, but that God had his guiding hand on the authors, that everything would tell the same story.

 

God doesn't tell different people different things. People write down different things, all guided by the hand of God, and they all line up perfectly, each from a different and unique perspective.

 

For God, the punishment for evil is separation from him. He is pure good, and cannot be in the presence of evil.

In the Bible he "supposedly" initiates a flood and wipes out the entire population of earth... I don't know where the 'pure good' of this occurs. That's just one spot where I'm very confused on the whole good/evil thing. God does things in the Bible that are pretty much the epitome of evil.

I can understand the confusion.

 

Again, this is simply a misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches.

 

The Bible does not teach that people are inherently good, and that they just need to awaken their potential and do what is right. The Bible teaches that humanity has corrupted itself with sin, and that people are constantly doing and choosing the wrong thing over and against choosing the right things. People don't want to do what is right and good, they want to do what is wrong and bad.

 

Every single human being is guilty of doing bad things in their life. In the deepest secret corner of our hearts, we are not genuinely good people. On the contrary, our hearts are full of all kinds of bad things- lust, envy, hatred, malice, etc. We just keep all this stuff tucked away and put on a happy face.

 

A dead tree doesn't produce healthy fruit. A corrupted human heart does not produce a righteous lifestyle.

 

God is a just and righteous God. He is perfect and pure good, called "holiness." Because of this, he cannot be in the presence of evil.

 

When you work at a job, you get a paycheck. Your paycheck is not considered a gift from your employer, it is what you have rightfully earned, according to your labor.

 

As far as God is concerned, the paycheck for living an evil life of rejecting him is death. This isn't his arbitrary decision on a whim, it is what we have rightfully earned, according to our lives of rejecting him and pursuing evil.

 

What is most important is that God's love has redirected his justice. Instead of giving us our paycheck that we have earned, he is reaching out to us in grace. He has sent his son Jesus to substitutionally accept what we deserve, in order that he may deal with us in pure mercy and love.

 

Charles Spurgeon put it well when he said,

O sinner, the fact that you are alive proves that God is not dealing with you according to strict justice, but in patient forbearance; every moment you live is another instance of omnipotent long-suffering. It is the sacrifice of Christ which arrests the axe of justice, which else must execute you.

Jesus has done all the work. Jesus has paid the price. But Jesus said that the only way is to trust in him. Jesus said that you have to give up running from and fighting God, and put your trust in him as the only hope of salvation from sin and death. He said if you do this, you will join him in eternal life.

 

The decision is ours to make. God has done this in a supernatural act of love and grace to us. But we have to either reject it, or accept it.

[kinkster]

The added bold are my replies.

 

 

Whether anyone worships him or not, every human being is in the same boat. Every single person has done wrong, and every single person needs God to pull us out of the sinking ship.

 

I am extremely sypmathetic with this view point, but one cannot deny human responsibility for wrongdoing. Our culture is obsessed with blameshifting, and always putting the blame on someone else. "Oh, I only did it because I was raised that way, so really it's my parents' fault, not mine." People trip on the sidewalk and sue the owner of the home, because they can't take responsibility for watching where they are going, and it happened to be on someone else's property.

 

Blameshifting in modern society is irrelevant. The point is, someone who supposedly goes to heaven might have done very wrong things if they had been born in a different time and place. They cant be held responsible for their conditions, and its obvious that its the main factor in what people believe/do. Some people never even hear of Jesus, some grow up in religious families. If everyone has totally different conditons, then they cannot be judged the same. That would be like sending a retarded child to detention because they got to many Fs. Yet we are still supposedly all judged based on how well we follow "x" rules and if we love and accept Jesus.

 

People are responsible for their actions, even though their environment plays a huge influence on them.

 

 

In the Bible, there is a principle known as "Progressive Revelation." This refers to the fact that God doesn't all at once say, BAM, here's the story. He unfolds it over time, with progressive steps that build atop one another. It is likened to a seed that begins in the first book of the Bible, then sprouts a stem in the second book, then buds in a few more books, etc. The blossom of the flower, in this analogy, is Jesus of Nazareth. He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and progressively reveals and shines more light on the Old. It is important to note that it is not "cancelling out" the old, or "overwriting" the old, but "fulfilling" the old, and bringing it to completion.

 

How can a person know mercy, if they don't know justice? How can a person understand grace, if they don't understand condemnation?

 

And how can you possibly claim that god was just all through the Old Testament.

 

God, as revealed in the Old Testament, is a partial revelation of God. Before God can display his mercy and grace and love in Jesus, he has to show humanity what mercy and grace and love are FOR- to redeem and save us from the death that comes from sin.

 

The Old Testament is half the picture. Many people look at the Old Testament and stop there. That is half the story. The whole point of the Old Testament was to pave the road for Jesus. Jesus is the whole point of the whole book, and Jesus ushers in the FULL revelation of God as a loving and forgiving and merciful God.

 

God's wrath is not one of his attributes. God's wrath is the natural outworking of his holiness. God is holy, and therefore cannot make accommodation for evil. His wrath is simply the getting rid of evil, but it is not an inherent attribute of God.

 

This is a very flawed defense. First of all what he did was not just. Damning homosexuals and people who work on sundays is obviously not just. It may have followed the current moral standars, but gods morals should transcend those. He also kills of thousands of innocent children and women(and men) to make way for his "chosen people", or people that happened to be born into that certain tribe. He kills people because they are part of a family. He killed men because they were part of the Egyptian army. And this is justice?

 

And even if it is somhow twisted enough to be considered good it makes no difference that its part of the story. He didnt do what he did so the Bible could be written. And the second part of the story is in totall oposition to the second. You act like the Old Testament is merely god bringing justice to those who have led an ungodly life. What god did, he did. It isnt reversed, its simply the opposite of what his "son" says for himself later on.

 

On the flip side, God's love is one of his inherent attributes. This is why he chose to reconcile the world to himself, through Jesus.

 

Jesus lived the perfect life that nobody could, without any sin. He didn't deserve death. But Jesus decided to take on the punishment for sin on himself substitutionally in our place, so that we would not have to. Jesus removes our sin from us, and imparts to us his life of perfection, so that we are "birthed anew," with a clean slate.

 

But Jesus said that the only way for this transaction to take place is by putting our trust in him. We have to believe that he is the son of God, and that he took on the penalty that we deserved, so that we wouldn't have to. But the decision is in our hands- we reject him, or we accept him.

[S.SubZero]

Each of these have been thoroughly, systematically, and exhaustively rebutted.

 

You can find everything here:

http://brainisignorant.blogspot.com/2008/0...l-amputees.html

http://brainisignorant.blogspot.com/

These are pretty funny since the main point of their weak "rebuttals" involve the typical "that site is wrong because Jesus/God said..." You don't fight your point of the existence of an imaginary being by using that being as the evidence. By that logic we could say Santa Claus exists, because every Christmas there's presents under the tree, so obviously Santa put them there.

With a simple Google search of "Hebrews," the first pages that all pop up say the exact opposite. Each of those pages that you found are the equivalent of, "Of course it's true, I read it on the internet!"

First off, I tried simply typing "Hebrews" in Google, and I looked through a couple of pages of results, and found nothing of the controversy, just information on the Hebrew people. Secondly.. bible.ca looks pretty hardcore. The other sites had religious significance also. At least one of them is a church. Is it that it's not *your* church, so it's not to be taken seriously?

You have gone against all scholarship, and common sense, to defend your religion of Dawkinsism. You have found obscure sources to "corroborate" your point of view, which are honestly laughable. You are trying to wrestle the facts away, when you literally don't even know them!

The fact that you attempt to twist Dawkins into some sort of religion is pretty funny. At the end of the day, he's just a guy. A guy that writes interesting books. I respect him as a scientist and an author, and I respect his solid foundation in reality, and he's not afraid to talk about it. That's as far as it goes really, and I don't dwell on him past the time I open and close his books (tho the Afghani kid I work with loves discussing it, a fellow atheist who gave me The God Delusion as a gift). I'd say I think about him less than you do.

Just relax and breathe a little, your feathers are getting ruffled too much. None of this is real anyway, right?

I see the 'now' as all that I have. Unfortunately the 'now' is also bombarded by religion sticking it's nose in everything and trying to set the standards it wants to set. It's bad enough when it's some oppressive regime on the other side of the world.. there's people in my own country, my own state, my own town that base laws and decide "punishment" based on ancient books.

The Bible does not teach that people are inherently good, and that they just need to awaken their potential and do what is right. The Bible teaches that humanity has corrupted itself with sin, and that people are constantly doing and choosing the wrong thing over and against choosing the right things. People don't want to do what is right and good, they want to do what is wrong and bad.

Civilization could not exist if this was the case. Civilization pre-bible (ie. ancient Egypt, ancient Greece) and places where the Bible was never known but civilization flourished (Japan, any Pacific island, most of Asia, all of America (oh wait Mormons scratch that), most of Africa, and a good portion of Europe) didn't seem to do too badly for never having met Jesus or read Genesis.

 

Japan is a shining example of what effectively removing the 'magical' aspects of religion can do. Shintoism and Buddhism in Japan are largely ceremonial, and while they are highly regarded and practiced, they have little of the mystery of actual religion to them. Your typical Japanese Shintoist has no doubt that there are no *real* gods, but enjoys the ceremonial concept of it. Going to the shrine is not so much a religious obligation as a social one.

 

It was when Shintoism was considered serious business, when the Emperor was descended from God, that Japan was it's most vicious and aggressive. I sometimes wonder if Christians would be happy the day that american citizens fly planes into mosques shouting GOD BLESS AMERICA!... sounds silly, but religion makes people act silly.

 

The rest of your post is not worth replying to as it just regurgitates stuff over and over. I will point out one thing though.. Feel free to "correct" this obvious misread, but Adam and Eve ate from a tree that had fruit of Knowledge. That was their crime. Their crime was.. wanting to know stuff. Ignorance is bliss. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[QuietOC]

I will point out one thing though.. Feel free to "correct" this obvious misread, but Adam and Eve ate from a tree that had fruit of Knowledge. That was their crime. Their crime was.. wanting to know stuff. Ignorance is bliss. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Is it admirable to know evil?

 

The word "know" is also used rather broadly in the context. The context also suggest Adam and Eve and standing in place of at least some part of the pre-historical human race. There is a great deal of parallels between Genesis 3 (Adam and Eve) and 4 (Able and Cain). Both brothers go through religious ceremony, but Cain's problem is not heresy, but human envy.

 

Yahwey offers this advice to Cain:

 

If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

 

Sin is not something God arbitrarily places on humans. It is a fact of human existence. A fact that might be personified well as serpents or crouching lions, but even in this myth, it is also described as homicide. Religious ceremonies don't help at all. Humans must master sin--rule over their evil desires, or else they are as good as dead.

 

Knowledge of evil seems to pretty universal. I think the big point is, how can we know the good?

[3nigma]

These are pretty funny since the main point of their weak "rebuttals" involve the typical "that site is wrong because Jesus/God said..."

You have mistakenly read it wrong. Every single reference to the Bible is from Marshall Brain, the person attacking the Bible. The rebuttals are the bold text that don't use any references. There is literally not a single one.

 

Simple mistake.

 

The rest of your post is not worth replying to as it just regurgitates stuff over and over.

That's because I keep bringing the conversation back on topic, but you guys keep derailing it ;-).

 

Adam and Eve ate from a tree that had fruit of Knowledge. That was their crime. Their crime was.. wanting to know stuff.

Man's crime was disobedience to God.

 

God offered life in paradise, and life in fellowship with him. Humanity wanted independence from God, and his crime was going against what God had said.

 

Many commentators say that the Knowledge is a person's conscience, which differentiates for them wrong and right.

 

Japan is a shining example of what effectively removing the 'magical' aspects of religion can do.

This is a wonderful example.

 

Japan is a dying, decaying society in every respect.

 

Japan is an island, with few natural resources- it's economy is driven by strong work ethic and importing of goods. Japan's work ethic has declined to the point of not being able to sustain the entire country's economy. The generational gap is tremendous, where there are not enough youths in the country to sustain and support the elderly, and the social structure is buckling. Japan's suicide rate is astronomical.

 

Have you ever been to Japan? I have.

 

This is not opinion, this is sociological fact.

 

It was when Shintoism was considered serious business, when the Emperor was descended from God, that Japan was it's most vicious and aggressive.

Religion is an ugly thing, especially blind and violent religion. Christianity is not about religion, it is about reconciliation with God. It is about putting trust in Jesus, and living as he did.

 

Religion is ugly. Jesus doesn't offer a religion. He offers truth.

 

The Bible teaches that humanity has corrupted itself with sin, and that people are constantly doing and choosing the wrong thing over and against choosing the right things.

Civilization could not exist if this was the case.

Civilization is perfectly capable of being built with humans being self-centered. Current civilization has even adapted to compensate for human self-centeredness.

 

Here is an interesting example. Why does Communism fail?

 

Communism is a fantastic system. It is a utopian system. It is an idealist system. It provides a society of perfect equality for all, where there are no poor of society, and likewise no rich to cause strife.

 

So why does it fail?

 

If you want to use history as your source, Communism always fails because its leaders always abuse the system. They are corrupt, they do not submit to the equality of the system, and take more for themselves than for everyone else.

 

If you use the Bible as your source, it says the same thing- humanity has corrupted itself with pursuing evil, rather than good.

 

The reason that Communism fails is because it is run by human beings.

 

Now look at the reverse example. Why does Capitalism succeed?

 

Capitalism is built on the concept of competition. Capitalism is built on supply and demand, and consumerism. Capitalism is built on greed. And you know what? Capitalism works.

 

Nobody thinks capitalism is a perfect system, not for a moment. But it is certainly the best we are utilizing with the current state of affairs.

 

Capitalism works because it dovetails perfectly with humanity's self-centeredness.

 

At the end of the day, [Dawkins is] just a guy.

If he's just a guy, then it's no problem- he made a mistake. He mistakenly wrote that Paul wrote Hebrews. There's no need to defend a mistake. As you have pointed out, it's a mistake that even Christians have made. So therefore it's even understable that he made the mistake. It's not a big deal.

 

The only reason it is a noteworthy is because it shows how very little scholarship went into the point. I assure you, a man of Dawkins' intelligence and repute would never allow himself to make that same mistake, were he to have known about it before publishing it. He has been laughed at up and down for this representation of his scholarship on this.

 

It's a simple mistake, but don't blindly draw up random psuedo-scholarship to pretend that it's a legitimate suggestion. I assure you in the most lighthearted way, it is simply a joke to assert this point.

 

However, this is very illustrative of a very important epistemological point. This entire conversation boils down to your presuppositions. Your presupposition is that God is not real. Therefore, you must interpret everything to fit into this presupposition.

 

Your presuppositions will not allow you to critically evaluate any evidence presented to prove that the New Testament Jesus is real. Any true scholarship that is shown contrary to your presupposition is written off or explained away, in order to fit consistently within your presupposition.

 

If I were to show you film footage of Jesus coming down from heaven, you would call it special effects. If I were to tell you that five hundred people saw it, and testified to it, you would call it mass hysteria. If you were shown Old Testament manuscripts dating from many centuries B.C., that predicted many details about Jesus of Nazareth, and then that they were all true of Jesus many centuries later, you would say that they were dated incorrectly, or forged, etc.

 

Everything is interpretted in line with your presuppositions. I cannot prove to you, or present any evidence that will say anything, because of your presuppositions. You have limited yourself to what data can be utilized. Your presupposition that God does not exist prevents you from interpreting the evidence that proves Jesus' authenticity from the evidence.

 

Most thoughtful scientists/naturalists, or intellectuals that utilize the scientific method, will call themselves agnostic, rather than atheist. This is because the scientific method is literally incapable of proving or disproving God.

 

However, some people will take a leap of faith, to step from agnostic to atheist, based on what is presented to them.

 

As an atheist, you have taken a step of faith that there is no God. These are your presuppositions that you must make the data coherent with.

 

Would you call yourself an agnostic, thereby not limiting yourself? Or are you already committed enough to atheism that you don't think you can get around it's presuppositional limitations?

 

They cant be held responsible for their conditions, and its obvious that its the main factor in what people believe/do.

You are correct that condition plays a huge factor in shaping a person's life and identity. However, you cannot eliminate human responsibility for their actions. Everyone is responsible for their decisions.

 

You are correct: A person cannot be held responsible for their conditions- and God does not hold people responsible for their conditions.

 

But a person can be held responsible for their decisions, regardless of how affected it is by condition- and it is this that God holds people responsible for.

 

Even any atheist would agree with this- it's what underlies the the rehabilitative criminal justice system. But even this example makes it more complicated than necessary. It's pure, simple, unadulterated common sense- every person of every society of every time period understands that people are held responsible for their actions.

 

Some people never even hear of Jesus, some grow up in religious families. If everyone has totally different conditons, then they cannot be judged the same.

This is why Jesus said that everyone that understands his truth needs to go out into all the world to tell everyone about him. He said,

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

And how can you possibly claim that god was just all through the Old Testament... It may have followed the current moral standars, but gods morals should transcend those... its simply the opposite of what his "son" says for himself later on.

God's moral standards are unchanging and ultimate. He is perfectly holy, so his standard is perfect holiness. God's morals do, indeed, transcend all morals of every culture everywhere.

 

This touches back onto the concept of "Progressive Revelation." The Old Testament was not meant to stand on its own, it strictly serves the purpose to pave the way for Jesus. Jesus brings the full revelation of God's love and mercy and grace. But what is the love and mercy and grace for?

 

The Old Testament was the display of God's standards of holiness. He literally expected people to live a 100%, perfect, holy life. It is impossible. It is literally, completely impossible. God knew this, but it was put in place to be an illustration of the perfect life that Jesus would live. God also introduced the Old Testament sacrificial system. The sacrificial system was instituted so that death would still be paid as the punishment for sin, but it was substitutionally born by an animal on the behalf of the people. This sacrificial system is also an incomplete precursor to God's ultimate plan, which he reveals fully in Jesus.

 

Jesus fulfills God's unreachable moral standards- he lived the perfect life according to God's standards and holiness. Jesus did not deserve the punishment for evil.

 

However, Jesus also fulfills the sacrificial system- Jesus is the one and only ultimate and final sacrifice. His sacrifice is the perfect and true one, and he substitutionally stood in our place to bear the punishment for evil.

 

God did this in order to display his [ilove and mercy and grace[/i] on us, which was his ultimate point from the very beginning. It is not a plan B, and it is not a second thought.

 

The Old Testament is a display of life without the love and mercy and grace of God. The Old Testament is a display of us getting what we deserve.

 

However, the Old Testament is not meant to stand on it's own, or be taken as a simple piece of the puzzle- it comes attached to the New Testament, Jesus, and the full and complete revelation of God.

 

The New Testament is showing that the only way that a person can be saved is through the love and mercy and grace of God. Nobody can live up to his standards, we only can be saved through putting trust in Jesus.

 

God is not different in the Old Testament and New, he simply displays his justice in the Old, and love and mercy and grace in the New. Both are true attributes of God.

 

God is just, because every single human being deserves death for pursuing evil, and pushing away from God. Going back to my previous post, this is the "paycheck" that we have rightly earned for ourselves.

 

However, Jesus has taken our place substitutionally to bear that punishment for evil on himself, in order that we can have the opportunity for life. But Jesus said that the only way to apply this to our lives is by putting our trust in him.

 

Jesus said that he offers the truth, and that he is the one and only way to life- all other roads lead to death. But we have to permanently turn from our lives of chasing after self-centeredness and sin, and believe that he is who he says he is.

[apowerr]

Found this on youtube

I found this argument and particular 'proof' very interesting. You can read it if you'd like, it basically quotes scripture to prove:

1. It is trivial for Jesus to materialize
   
2. There would be many benefits if Jesus did materialize
   
3. Jesus has supposedly materialized to other human beings
   
4. Jesus has promised to answer our prayer that he materialize
   

Yet when one prays to Jesus, he does not appear. I for one just prayed, asking for Jesus to appear, and then finished with Amen. Unfortunately nothing happened. What do some of you who are familiar with the Bible think of this?

[QuietOC]

Man's crime was disobedience to God.

 

God offered life in paradise, and life in fellowship with him. Humanity wanted independence from God, and his crime was going against what God had said.

I should point on that in Genesis 1 "what God said" is reality. One could say that "disobedience to God" is equivalent to human delusion--the creation of one's own false reality.

[kinkster]

If you think that ultimate judgment of a perfect god can be compared to our judicial system then you must not understand the point of punishment. Our laws pertaining to punishment don't claim to be "fair" or perfectly just. Why? Because its utterly impossible. Laws are there for the good of the people, they aren't for giving someone what they deserve. And as for people that haven't heard of Jesus, you have not answered my question; you only said that were supposed to go tell people.

 

And thus all the solid laws that god gave would be {censored}. If he was truly being just and good to each person, he wouldn't be able to lay down laws like "if you do X your going to hell." Every persons situation has to be judged differently, and yet we have enough laws from god to be sure that some people will go to hell.

 

 

Then about the bible: Before the new testament, the old testament was all there was. So, did those people simply not get to know that he was also a loving and great god? The bible isn't just there as an illustration, its what happened. And the two pictures of god, the old one and Jesus, cannot be the same. If this god were real, he would be constant, not showing of different parts of his character and shutting off others. If Jesus had been in the same positions as god was in the old testament he would not have made the choices. He would not have proclaimed all {censored} and people who work on sunday as worthy of death.

 

And for justice to be objective, there can be no free will or choice given the same situation, or it isn't objective at all.

[Paranoid Marvin]

I should point on that in Genesis 1 "what God said" is reality. One could say that "disobedience to God" is equivalent to human delusion--the creation of one's own false reality.

 

It's not human delusion or a false reality.

The fact is, there are stars out there that are 3x the age of the earth, contradicting what the bible says.

 

I think you've just proved what many of us believe is the problem with religion.

It teaches you to deny facts and logic where they contradict the bible, and even practising a great deal of doublethink.

[QuietOC]

Then about the bible: Before the new testament, the old testament was all there was. So, did those people simply not get to know that he was also a loving and great god? The bible isn't just there as an illustration, its what happened. And the two pictures of god, the old one and Jesus, cannot be the same. If this god were real, he would be constant, not showing of different parts of his character and shutting off others. If Jesus had been in the same positions as god was in the old testament he would not have made the choices. He would not have proclaimed all {censored} and people who work on sunday as worthy of death.

Jesus teaching matches the teaching of the old testament. You seem to be confusing changing behavior with changing character. Nothing Jesus stated was even new to first century Judaism. Certainly he came down on a specific side of certain issues, but the Jews themselves identified him as a Jewish teacher.

 

The fact is, there are stars out there that are 3x the age of the earth, contradicting what the bible says.

 

I think you've just proved what many of us believe is the problem with religion.

It teaches you to deny facts and logic where they contradict the bible, and even practising a great deal of doublethink.

I don't see where the Bible teaches any young age for the stars, so where is there a contradiction?

[Paranoid Marvin]

Jesus teaching matches the teaching of the old testament. You seem to be confusing changing behavior with changing character. Nothing Jesus stated was even new to first century Judaism. Certainly he came down on a specific side of certain issues, but the Jews themselves identified him as a Jewish teacher.

 

 

I don't see where the Bible teaches any young age for the stars, so where is there a contradiction?

 

We're already discussed this thoroughly, and the many contradictions have been made obvious.

 

There is no evidence that the stars were formed after the creation of the earth, and copious amounts of evidence that the earth came a long time after most stars had formed.

The sun is a 3rd generation start, may I remind you, that means there were three generations of stars (at least) before the sun itself, and the earth did not form until the sun was nearly fully developed.

[QuietOC]

There is no evidence that the stars were formed after the creation of the earth, and copious amounts of evidence that the earth came a long time after most stars had formed.

The sun is a 3rd generation start, may I remind you, that means there were three generations of stars (at least) before the sun itself, and the earth did not form until the sun was nearly fully developed.

Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven,

and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

Sounds like stars have been around for a while.

 

So, you don't have a point. Okay, I agree.

 

Again it is surprising that these ancient near easterners who wrote Genesis managed to not write something that merely repeated the common at the time religious/supernatural notions of the creation of the world. In a good sense Genesis is rather humanistic and even ancient scientific. It recognizes some of the ordering of living things and even a progression from simple forms to more complex ones. The great powers of the cosmos are not divine, but merely parts of natural creation. In its cultural context it has enormous claims against religious beliefs. It does not appeal to the common shared notions, but instead subverts them to argue that people's problems are thier own and not due to the actions of waring divines.

[S.SubZero]

You have mistakenly read it wrong. Every single reference to the Bible is from Marshall Brain, the person attacking the Bible. The rebuttals are the bold text that don't use any references. There is literally not a single one.

I would go through the entire thing and find all the references that claim that "since the Bible says it, it must be true", but it's not a particularly well-laid out site and the rebuttals are also kinda funny, like he claims that yes, limbs HAVE regenerated. He also falls back on the "interpreted wrong" excuse.

Man's crime was disobedience to God.

An interesting notion here; before the 'disobedience', man had no idea what 'disobedience' was. If you believe in Adam & Eve literally, as in at one point they were the only two people on earth, they could have no sense of 'right' and 'wrong' since they had no way to tell. 'Wrong' did not exist, therefore 'right' did not exist either. Besides, they also had no guideline for what authority was, and no reason to believe or doubt anything told to them. The way the story works is that it plays to the ignorance of the people reading it. It was likely your illiterate, uneducated desert tribesman was going to be quickly fed this story, with "DON'T BE LIKE THEM, DO WHAT YER TOLD" by a so-called "authority" (the guys with the swords) and then they'd collect the tax (and maybe a daughter) and move on.

 

Japan is a dying, decaying society in every respect.

 

Japan is an island, with few natural resources- it's economy is driven by strong work ethic and importing of goods. Japan's work ethic has declined to the point of not being able to sustain the entire country's economy. The generational gap is tremendous, where there are not enough youths in the country to sustain and support the elderly, and the social structure is buckling. Japan's suicide rate is astronomical.

 

Have you ever been to Japan? I have.

I have been to Japan several times. Every time I have been there I have been reminded of their wealth, their technological expertise, their damn good noodles, and their bizarre taste in cartoons. The things you neglect to see is that they got where they are, among the top economies of the world, despite having every conceivable disadvantage. They are even the only recipient of a non-test atomic weapon strike. Many of their current problems stem from their exceptional life expectancy (creating the very large older population) and less people having kids, because hey, Japan isn't exactly cheap. They are experiencing a similar situation as the US will experience when our baby boomers start getting into their 70's and 80's.

 

Religion is an ugly thing, especially blind and violent religion. Christianity is not about religion, it is about reconciliation with God. It is about putting trust in Jesus, and living as he did.

Many Christians do not see it this way. Or is a "no true scotsman" defense?

 

Here is an interesting example. Why does Communism fail?

If you use the Bible as your source, it says the same thing- humanity has corrupted itself with pursuing evil, rather than good.

The reason that Communism fails is because it is run by human beings.

Now look at the reverse example. Why does Capitalism succeed?

Capitalism is built on the concept of competition. Capitalism is built on supply and demand, and consumerism. Capitalism is built on greed. And you know what? Capitalism works.

Nobody thinks capitalism is a perfect system, not for a moment. But it is certainly the best we are utilizing with the current state of affairs.

Communism *did* work at one time. Russia in its early years of communism was capable of great things. It worked when they needed to fight off an invading army, or get into space, or stand off against a very powerful capitalist superpower. As flawed as communism is, for a time it was a legitimate perceived threat to the world. At least to the neo-conservatives.

 

Capitalism has elements that go beyond sheer greed, and some of the most charitable people in the world live in capitalist societies.

 

The only reason it is a noteworthy is because it shows how very little scholarship went into the point. I assure you, a man of Dawkins' intelligence and repute would never allow himself to make that same mistake, were he to have known about it before publishing it. He has been laughed at up and down for this representation of his scholarship on this.

There have been things in his books he's outright admitted to not knowing much about, and other things he's clearly stated as his opinion. Do you have some other specific examples of things he's said that were completely wrong, and the people in his scholarship who laughed at him about it?

However, this is very illustrative of a very important epistemological point. This entire conversation boils down to your presuppositions. Your presupposition is that God is not real. Therefore, you must interpret everything to fit into this presupposition.

 

Your presuppositions will not allow you to critically evaluate any evidence presented to prove that the New Testament Jesus is real. Any true scholarship that is shown contrary to your presupposition is written off or explained away, in order to fit consistently within your presupposition.

My presupposition that god isn't real is only matched by your presupposition that he is. You believe an old book. I believe reality.

If I were to show you film footage of Jesus coming down from heaven, you would call it special effects.

Why wouldn't I? "No no it really happened, see, this magazine has pictures!" A picture isn't worth 1000 words these days.. it's worth a few hours in Photoshop. If he appeared directly to me, in my house, while I was awake, then it would be a different story. But it's Jesus, so if you can make him drop at all you can certainly make him drop here.

If I were to tell you that five hundred people saw it, and testified to it, you would call it mass hysteria.

It depends on who the 500 are. If it's 500 kids at this place then yeah I'd probably have some issues with it. He'd have to drop at a scientific convention or on the set of a big movie studio (not hanging by wires) to really convince me otherwise.

If you were shown Old Testament manuscripts dating from many centuries B.C., that predicted many details about Jesus of Nazareth, and then that they were all true of Jesus many centuries later, you would say that they were dated incorrectly, or forged, etc.

Manuscripts dating from many hundred B.C.? Not manuscripts that the people writing the later parts had access to? When that's the case, of course the later written stuff can conveniently meet the prophecies of the older stuff. When you're writing fiction, anything can happen!

Everything is interpretted in line with your presuppositions. I cannot prove to you, or present any evidence that will say anything, because of your presuppositions. You have limited yourself to what data can be utilized. Your presupposition that God does not exist prevents you from interpreting the evidence that proves Jesus' authenticity from the evidence.

When I was young, and before I ever heard of Dawkins nor really knew there was a term for non-religious people, I often questioned why people wanted to believe in the biblical God. I mean people throughout history have believed in much cooler entities like Zeus and Thor and Valhalla and Mount Olympus and Shiva and 8000 gods in a grain of rice and all other wild stuff. Dragons wound around the earth and massive world trees.. This is awesome and I'd rather believe when I die I'll go to an afterlife of infinite beer and fighting (which I do none of either in real life) and maybe rocking out with vikings or something. Sitting beside some guy on a cloud? BORRRRRING!

 

I have no more reason to believe in God than I have to believe in Zeus. Both are ancient stories, one just had more ambitious (and better armored and weaponed) believers. Islam today spreads like Christianity of olden times must have spread.. At knife point.

 

As an atheist, you have taken a step of faith that there is no God. These are your presuppositions that you must make the data coherent with.

I never stepped TO faith. It's not a "belief in disbelief" just as I don't "believe in disbelieving" that I have three arms. I look at myself, and I come to a pretty reasonable conclusion that I don't have three arms. When I look at the world, and the good and bad, and the beauty and ugliness, and the universe this world is in, I don't see the third arm of some divine entity. Nothing in this universe lines up with any kind of designer, or creator, or sentient initiator. There's no eye in the sky and no holy microphone listening to me. If it proved itself otherwise that would be great, but at this point it hasn't and it doesn't appear that it will. The best we get is "miracle" coincidental cures and the Virgin Mary appearing in various foods and flat surfaces.

Would you call yourself an agnostic, thereby not limiting yourself? Or are you already committed enough to atheism that you don't think you can get around it's presuppositional limitations?

I'm pure atheist. I do not believe in any divine being or universal manager of any sort.

This is why Jesus said that everyone that understands his truth needs to go out into all the world to tell everyone about him. He said,

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

God's moral standards are unchanging and ultimate. He is perfectly holy, so his standard is perfect holiness. God's morals do, indeed, transcend all morals of every culture everywhere.

The people who wrote the Bible encouraged the pimping of Jesus because religion is a great control tool. It was especially convenient in those days when a ruler couldn't put guards everywhere, and some lands they ruled were rather large. Instead of taking the Attila strategy of "ransack the city to show them who's boss" they subverted the population by convincing them that they had to obey the "holy" laws because an invisible and omniscient being was watching them, even in their homes. Plot against the local tyrant? No way, GOD is watching!"

 

However, Jesus also fulfills the sacrificial system- Jesus is the one and only ultimate and final sacrifice. His sacrifice is the perfect and true one, and he substitutionally stood in our place to bear the punishment for evil.

Jesus is an effigy. In the grand scale of torture and death in the history of the world, his death in the Bible was somewhat weak. There are people in recent history that have suffered much worse than he did, and for longer periods of time. At the time it had the "wow" factor.

 

However, the Old Testament is not meant to stand on it's own, or be taken as a simple piece of the puzzle- it comes attached to the New Testament, Jesus, and the full and complete revelation of God.

I need a sig for any atheist forum I may visit in the future, so if you could say a quick "I'm a Christian and I believe all Jews are WRONG." with the emphasis on the WRONG I'd appreciate it.

 

The New Testament had to be written because the Old Testament was not very good at doing what people using it were trying to do. It was like one of those disaster movies where the good guys don't win in the end. At least the New Testament takes the disaster and throws in a "crop duster plows his jet into the enemy weapon at the last second" optimistic ending. It takes all the depression and utter "God is pissed" stuff and softens it, adding a dash of hope. How much of it was real? Well, how much of Independence Day was real? Jets *are* real, ya know.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Sounds like stars have been around for a while.

 

So, you don't have a point. Okay, I agree.

 

Again it is surprising that these ancient near easterners who wrote Genesis managed to not write something that merely repeated the common at the time religious/supernatural notions of the creation of the world. In a good sense Genesis is rather humanistic and even ancient scientific. It recognizes some of the ordering of living things and even a progression from simple forms to more complex ones. The great powers of the cosmos are not divine, but merely parts of natural creation. In its cultural context it has enormous claims against religious beliefs. It does not appeal to the common shared notions, but instead subverts them to argue that people's problems are thier own and not due to the actions of waring divines.

 

I appreciate you are trying to read between the lines, but no matter what the context, Genesis is wrong, and there is no debating that.

[QuietOC]

The Old Testament is a display of life without the love and mercy and grace of God. The Old Testament is a display of us getting what we deserve.

..

However, the Old Testament is not meant to stand on it's own, or be taken as a simple piece of the puzzle- it comes attached to the New Testament, Jesus, and the full and complete revelation of God.

...

God is not different in the Old Testament and New, he simply displays his justice in the Old, and love and mercy and grace in the New. Both are true attributes of God.

This is just simply wrong. Love, mercy, and grace is perhaps more common in the Old Testament, and there is plenty of justice in the New Testament. Just look at Genesis 3 and 4. Yahwey shows considerable amount of love towards a murderer of all people!

This is awesome and I'd rather believe when I die I'll go to an afterlife of infinite beer and fighting (which I do none of either in real life) and maybe rocking out with vikings or something. Sitting beside some guy on a cloud? BORRRRRING!

The "sitting... on a cloud" afterlife things is Greek/Zeus not biblical. The biblical view is resurrection and bodily living on a new (renewed) earth.

 

I have no more reason to believe in God than I have to believe in Zeus. Both are ancient stories, one just had more ambitious (and better armored and weaponed) believers.

So, the Bible is more ambitious? Maybe it is just more true? I am not against seeing truth in other ancient literature. It is abundantly evident that the biblical writers where aware of the ancient literature of their time and borrowed from it. The fact that the Bible is old doesn't require it to be false.

 

My question for you is do you know the biblical God? Have you really gotten to know this literary character? I find most atheist know a very different god--a god that should not be believed, so their unbelief is in fact biblically commendable.

 

I also don't think biblical belief even requires the Bible. If the Bible itself is to be believed people have believed long before any of it was written. Even the Old Testament is a rather recent writing according to its own chronology. The Bible's significance lies with its accuracy, and not with the religious traditions that make claims about it.

[Paranoid Marvin]

The Bible's significance lies with its accuracy, and not with the religious traditions that make claims about it.

 

The bible is "wholly" inaccurate (pardon the pun) from page one, in a literal sense.

If it cannot be factual in a literal sense, then it can not be used as a source of facts, because the presentation of facts must not be ambiguous.

[QuietOC]

The bible is "wholly" inaccurate (pardon the pun) from page one, in a literal sense.

If it cannot be factual in a literal sense, then it can not be used as a source of facts, because the presentation of facts must not be ambiguous.

Literature means how it intends itself to mean, not as how you or I or anyone else wants it to mean.

 

Nothing in the entire history of literature has ever had a literal sense. Groups of letters into words have no literal meaning (i suppose they could mean curves and lines.) You might want Genesis to mean something in plain English, but, sorry, it is not even plain ancient Hebrew (and I haven't even learned the alphabet yet.)

 

But Genesis is hardly ambiguous. It makes quite forceful statements. Sorry for us, itis not concerned with all of our modern notions or questions. It does offer us something, though, and, so far as I read, what it offers is accurate.

 

And it's a 2,400 year old book written by a bunch of uneducated tribesmen--its inaccuracy must be manifest. Please elaborate some.

[kinkster]

Jesus teaching matches the teaching of the old testament. You seem to be confusing changing behavior with changing character. Nothing Jesus stated was even new to first century Judaism. Certainly he came down on a specific side of certain issues, but the Jews themselves identified him as a Jewish teacher.I don't see where the Bible teaches any young age for the stars, so where is there a contradiction?

I woulds certainly say his teachings don't go along with the old testament gods actions.Also the "god cant stand being in the presence of evil" is just another meaningless claim to support the damnation of people. He talks with satan according to the bible, and no doubt jesus talks to various bad people.

[QuietOC]

I woulds certainly say his teachings don't go along with the old testament gods actions.

For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

 

I would happily discuss the old testament's god's actions. The whole putting a special mark of protection on the brother murderer Cain in Genesis 4 instead of just obliterating him might be the place to start.

 

Also the "god cant stand being in the presence of evil" is just another meaningless claim to support the damnation of people.

Biblically it is the other way around humans can't stand the presence of Yahwey. 

[kinkster]

Yes, a good place to start for a look at the hypocrisy and inconsistency of a fictional god.

 

 

And as one man said, its impossible for Christians to genuinely accept or love those who aren't christians.

[QuietOC]

And as one man said, its impossible for Christians to genuinely accept or love those who aren't christians.

Ridiculous! Back to the Sermon on the Mount:

 

You're familiar with the old written law, 'Love your friend,' and its unwritten companion, 'Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that.

 

"In a word, what I'm saying is, Grow up. You're kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you."

[Paranoid Marvin]

And it's a 2,400 year old book written by a bunch of uneducated tribesmen--its inaccuracy must be manifest. Please elaborate some.

 

You've just summarised for us why the bible cannot and should not be taken as fact.

 

Makes my argument a lot easier...

[kinkster]

Ridiculous! Back to the Sermon on the Mount:

 

 

Your quote of the bible there sounds like a version updated for "modern" times or something.(off topic, just mentioning)

 

 

 

Anyhow, here is the quote that I was talking about.

 

A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never tolerant, and he is unable to be tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not successful. However, hatred leads to persecution when the might of the majority is behind it.

 

In the case of a Christian clergyman the tragi-comical is found in this: that the Christian demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand, because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman. The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a child for cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object of love will be eaten up. …

[mifki]

how can people waste so much time writing huuuuge replies over a stupid old book?