|
shame on an IGA posted:
One unusual thing about the early New Testament manuscripts is that they were widely circulated in Codex's that were much more like books instead of scrolls. This was very unusual for that time period. The amount of early texts we have on hand of the New Testament is staggering compared to the next largest text collection Homer (Iliad) date written- 900 B.C. earliest copy - 400 B.C. time span in between 500 yrs amount of manuscripts- 643 textual accuracy 95% New Testament date written- 1st Cent. A.D. (A.D. 50-100) earliest manuscripts - 2nd Cent. A.D.(c. A.D. 130 f.) time span between - less than 100 years amount of manuscripts 5600 textual accuracy (roughly) 95 % (I think its more like this number than what is given in this article of 99.5% but the number of manuscripts is accurate as well as time span) source on those numbers = http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Jun 21, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Hello everyone!, could god create so big burrito that he couldnt eat it
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Yes I take medicine daily and my symptoms are nearly non existent. I do still constanly hear a stream of information in the form of english words that correlates to any outer noise (or inward thought) that does not seem to come from my own personality. That I have gotten use too over the past 5 years. Namarrgon posted:These are two extremely incompatible statements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:could god create so big burrito that he couldnt eat it of course, even a regular person can create a burrito so big that they can't eat it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:of course, even a regular person can create a burrito so big that they can't eat it. yes but god is supposed to be ornithopter so he should be able to eat it
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:yes but god is supposed to be ornithopter so he should be able to eat it You seem to have the idea of a robot that flaps its wings confused with "omnipotent" meaning all powerful. (If your interested in strange flying things read Ezekiel 1) The answer is no He could not make a burrito He couldn't eat because He created the universe by fiat (out of nothing) and by fiat He could eat the burrito. If your talking about the incarnate Jesus then He would tell you not to tempt the Lord with a silly question but since He came to earth fully God and fully man His stomach would be the size of a man's. However He fed 5,000 people with 5 loaves of bread (biscuits really) and 2 fish I feel confident He could eat the burrito.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:If your talking about the incarnate Jesus then He would tell you not to tempt the Lord with a silly question source? why would the Lord be "tempted" by a silly question? quote:He came to earth fully God and fully man His stomach would be the size of a man's. But which man's? Different men have differently sized stomachs, with quite a lot of variation. This may not seem like an important distinction but, when it comes to eating large burritos, it is. quote:However He fed 5,000 people with 5 loaves of bread (biscuits really) and 2 fish I feel confident He could eat the burrito. If you divide up 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish between 5,000 people than each person is only getting a small amount of food. That does not sound like a challenge to eat, compared to a burrito of divine proportions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
photomikey posted:Can you comment further on this response ^^ ? Your writing reads as textbook schizophrenic. I will be glad to, I have some things to tend to on the farm here this morning, but I will elaborate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:source? why would the Lord be "tempted" by a silly question? - Q. why would he be tempted by a silly question? A. Matthew 4: 5-7 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6“If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’c ” 7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test. -- Q. which man's stomach? A. the descendant of king David (the lineage of the promised Jewish Messiah) that was born to Mary who was a Jewish woman. The best I can think of right now is a very Jewish man's stomach Q. He didn't give them much to eat apparently A. Luke 9: 15-17 The disciples did so, and everyone sat down. 16Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke them. Then he gave them to the disciples to distribute to the people. 17They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:A. Matthew 4: 5-7 I don't think daring God to kill himself by throwing himself off of a temple - which would probably hurt no matter what and kind of a dick thing to say - is really comparable to asking about eating a large burrito, an activity most find enjoyable. quote:-- Q. which man's stomach? I'm a Jewish man. I've known a lot of other Jewish men. Our stomachs, too, vary in size. There isn't like a particularly "Jewish" stomach size. That's not a feature we are known for, and we have fat men and thin men among our ranks, and with varying ability to consume burritos. quote:Q. He didn't give them much to eat apparently I think you misunderstood the point. The fact that the people he fed were satisfied with the meal does not, in any way, have any bearing on the size of burrito he himself would be able to ingest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:I don't think daring God to kill himself by throwing himself off of a temple - which would probably hurt no matter what and kind of a dick thing to say - is really comparable to asking about eating a large burrito, an activity most find enjoyable. I still insist the point about feeding the 5,000 is relevant. The inference I make in that situation is that he fed them enough to be satisfied, not just a crumb like it would seem, because that would just make the crowd angry. He was able to multiply the food He had at his disposal, so I think He would also be able to divide his burrito or whatever he was eating. I think it would be a matter of motive if you were asking Him yourself to eat the burrito though, like if you just wanted to see Him do it for no real reason, it would be like asking your boss to pick his nose and eat it, he would probably tell you not to tempt him with shenanigans, same principle here Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:- Q. why would he be tempted by a silly question? I want to play, but please take all of this in good faith, with a spirit of interest in mutual development, and not as any kind of attack or anything. Okay, so, "why would he be tempted by a silly question?" Because he's a jealous god, of course! As you mention, you should not put your god to the test - but that is pretty specifically a commandment being given to followers of that god. It's also curious regarding its motivation. You've mentioned intent being the foundation of hermeneutics here, so what would be the intent of God or his messengers in warning his followers not to test him? It rather sounds like a parent telling a teenager not to question their authority. What is your take on the evident jealousy and perhaps bizarre agendas and outright lack of compassion of God as revealed in both the Old and New Testaments? There's a great meditation by Marcus Aurelius that goes Marcus Aurelius posted:"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid." Taking this as a jumping off point, a lot of the Old Testament relationship with god is more or less transactional, the kinds of interactions we see from most other relationships with personal deities. That is, the relationship between the early Jews and their god is not a kind of salvation based relationship, but rather pretty typical god stuff - he demands sacrifice, obedience, and so on, and in return he delivers them from slavery, and so on. Beyond that, he certainly isn't the only god in town - after all, he shows up the Egyptian gods in Moses' showdown with the pharaoh's wizards, but there's never a question of whether the other gods exist. So the question becomes, what justifies this as a one true god, especially when he is characterized, self-characterized even, as being a jealous god and certainly not a compassionate god? And wouldn't the kind of cruel god who demands animal sacrifice fall under this concept of an unjust god? So why should we want to follow him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
So I started hearing a voice saying they were the freemasons back in '11 and that they were initiating me. Well that never really materialized because no one ever contacted me in person about the organization. As of today I have not heard from them so I think it was more likely just demonic activity. I started to become extremely paranoid about everything and would lash out at others thinking they were plotting to kill me. I was put on several anti psycotics that all were extremely painful due to severe akathisia. Those side effects led me to run away to far away Baltimore where I spent most of the winter sleeping in 'code blue' homeless shelter. It really did not bother me much at all to be in that situation. At this point I had zero allegiance to the triune God. After coming back home after a phone call to my parent I had some rough times, several psych ward visits and I went several months without saying one word (which led me to be at the state hospital for a while, truly like being on another planet) Eventually I found a medicine that worked, along with having a long period of time without any substance abuse, which led my health to improve dramatically. I started reading the Bible and struggled with it for a long time, really understanding the grand narrative. I used to attend AA meetings that were sponsored by what turned out to be my first church family. I started going to services there and soon joined and was baptized. I found a strong passion of pursuing scriptural knowledge spending many many hours practically everyday for a long time learning the lessons of scripture. Eventually I made the decision to attend the school I go to now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I want to play, but please take all of this in good faith, with a spirit of interest in mutual development, and not as any kind of attack or anything. Why not test Him? Because He is holy and we are unworthy of His affections. Like you say its similar to a parent telling their children not to question their authority, God is "Father" in a relational sense to Jesus and to His believers. Also He is no ordinary Father but a Father of a greater order of magnitude than what we have with our earthly parents. In the Old Testament, the high priest was the only one who could go into the holy of holies where the ark of the covenant was held and he could only do that one day a year. If anyone else tried this they would not survive it. God in his orders through the Bible frequently calls us to respect and revere him, and to do otherwise is a transgression against Him. I disagree with you regarding the account of Moses and Aaron vs Pharaoh. In fact, the sequence of events is clearly evidence against the Egyptians deities existence. They were completely absent in their efforts to stop any of the plagues. Yes Pharaoh's sorcerors conjured up some snakes and frogs which attests to some magical powers but I would classify their lack of ability to really compete with the plagues as demonic arts. I also disagree about the lack of compassion. He feeds his people manna in the wilderness every day for roughly 40 years so they didn't starve and He makes water come out of the rock to let them drink there too. In the New Testament Jesus is healing people about as fast as they bring them to Him. Thats compassion to me, and thats the same God that is in the Old Testament just revealed in a different way of looking at him. I think covenantal is a better choice of word than transactional. The stipulations are laid out for the people to choose to accept or decline (in Israel's case they chose to accept) Not all the covenants in the Bible work in the same way though, for instance there are no stipulations given in the covenant between David and God regarding his heir to sit on the throne of Israel forever. No caveat about disobedience. Yes their iniquities did force them into exile later but God kept His end of the covenant by protecting the royal lineage. His agenda's are not really that bizarre if you look at it hard enough. He required the blood of bulls and goats and rams because sin is detestable to Him and it symbolizes the seriousness of the issue. Nothing says that more than a bason full of blood. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
This may well be the weirdest thread I have ever seen, if this is sincere. I used to work with a guy that had a master's degree in theology from a Southern Baptist university, and I would often discuss theology with him. There are parallels between the way he would argue and this (heavy emphasis on philosophy jargon in place of logic, for example), but this is... something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:This may well be the weirdest thread I have ever seen, if this is sincere. I used to work with a guy that had a master's degree in theology from a Southern Baptist university, and I would often discuss theology with him. There are parallels between the way he would argue and this (heavy emphasis on philosophy jargon in place of logic, for example), but this is... something else. No matter what it actually is its all just ten more dollars for the servers
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:So I started hearing a voice saying they were the freemasons back in '11 and that they were initiating me. Well that never really materialized because no one ever contacted me in person about the organization. As of today I have not heard from them so I think it was more likely just demonic activity. Are you making a joke here OR are you saying you thought at the time that those were demon voices OR are you saying that you still to this day believe that the auditory hallucinations, a classic symptom of schizophrenia, was caused by actual literal demons and not your mental illness?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
I AM SATAN!!!!!!! YEHOSUA EBEN, I'M GOING TO GET YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
Did you ever think that if you're managing schizophrenia then getting a pastor's job which depends on your personal faith being nearly unshakeable might not be such a great idea? Or that, while you're still hearing voices, that having the option of changing your mind about specific Christian dogma might be a good thing? I mean, it's great that you're getting involved with something bigger than yourself after a rough period in your life, but shouldn't your faith be working for you and keeping you on the straight and narrow rather than being the thing you do for a paycheck? twerking on the railroad fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Why not test Him? Because He is holy and we are unworthy of His affections. Like you say its similar to a parent telling their children not to question their authority, God is "Father" in a relational sense to Jesus and to His believers. Also He is no ordinary Father but a Father of a greater order of magnitude than what we have with our earthly parents. In the Old Testament, the high priest was the only one who could go into the holy of holies where the ark of the covenant was held and he could only do that one day a year. If anyone else tried this they would not survive it. God in his orders through the Bible frequently calls us to respect and revere him, and to do otherwise is a transgression against Him. But why does he need or want that respect or reverence? That's a rather petty demand, frankly, and something I expect from a person who has too much power, not something I expect from the kind of being that it's said can deliver me from that exact kind of suffering. quote:I disagree with you regarding the account of Moses and Aaron vs Pharaoh. In fact, the sequence of events is clearly evidence against the Egyptians deities existence. They were completely absent in their efforts to stop any of the plagues. Yes Pharaoh's sorcerors conjured up some snakes and frogs which attests to some magical powers but I would classify their lack of ability to really compete with the plagues as demonic arts. I don't know what "demonic arts" means here, but it is my experience that one man's demon is another's deity. It's not unlike the difference between "freedom fighters" and "insurgents" or "terrorists." I can see that interpretation of that story as valid, though I generally just use it, and Elijah with prophets of Baal, as evidence that the Old Testament is not a monotheistic work but rather a polytheistic work in which god simply happens to be the preferred god from the point of view of the authors. quote:I also disagree about the lack of compassion. He feeds his people manna in the wilderness every day for roughly 40 years so they didn't starve and He makes water come out of the rock to let them drink there too. In the New Testament Jesus is healing people about as fast as they bring them to Him. Thats compassion to me, and thats the same God that is in the Old Testament just revealed in a different way of looking at him. And yet in the Old Testament god requires the murder of animals as well as of his enemies, and he establishes the terms by which those sacrifices are required for absolution of transgressions against his desires, which are themselves often petty and arbitrary. Then, in the New Testament, Jesus himself has to be murdered in order to fulfill the contractual obligations established by God. That's not compassionate - that's horrific. Nobody's hands are bloodier than god's. This, incidentally, isn't a "problem of evil" style observation, merely an observation of the resolution to the problem of evil. Murdering animals is similarly evil, it causes suffering, so why should god command that it be done? Other deities in other religions offer atonement without animal sacrifice, so then either god is incapable of offering the same, or uninterested. In either case that's not a great endorsement. Similarly, throughout the Old Testament god tends to endorse the murder of entire tribes, slavery, and so on. That's not compassionate at all. Lot's wife. Job. God is kind of a dick, basically. quote:I think covenantal is a better choice of word than transactional. The stipulations are laid out for the people to choose to accept or decline (in Israel's case they chose to accept) Not all the covenants in the Bible work in the same way though, for instance there are no stipulations given in the covenant between David and God regarding his heir to sit on the throne of Israel forever. No caveat about disobedience. Yes their iniquities did force them into exile later but God kept His end of the covenant by protecting the royal lineage. A covenant is just a contract, and contracts are just frameworks for transactions. It very much is transactional. quote:His agenda's are not really that bizarre if you look at it hard enough. He required the blood of bulls and goats and rams because sin is detestable to Him and it symbolizes the seriousness of the issue. Nothing says that more than a bason full of blood. His agendas aren't bizarre, but that's perhaps the problem. This is a very limited god. He has favorites, he has preferences, he has things he dislikes. His followers have as much power as he does in their relationship - it takes very little for him to have his hand forced by his followers, so he's limited by their actions. Other religions do just fine without animal sacrifice, without murdering all of those who would dare to worship other gods. It all just seems very petty, and it seems like god causes more suffering than he resolves. Not a great source of refuge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
Scudworth posted:Are you making a joke here OR are you saying you thought at the time that those were demon voices OR are you saying that you still to this day believe that the auditory hallucinations, a classic symptom of schizophrenia, was caused by actual literal demons and not your mental illness? I understand that you may believe the metaphysical realm is completely void of any entities, but I don't agree, and I have a rather large amount of evidence from my experiences to back that up. I have seen many visions ranging from flip book like spirits when I wake up in the middle of the night, to persistent tactile hallucinations for years and years in the nether regions, to constellation like lights in the sky that were moving around. Plus whenever I ask the voices what they are they say demons. You see from my perspective it doesnt all just seem like my brain is doing it without any guidance from spirit but that there is actually another personality involved with the interaction Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:I AM SATAN!!!!!!! YEHOSUA EBEN, I'M GOING TO GET YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Satan often times comes as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Satan often times comes as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14) Yeah but sometimes he looks like a big demon thing I guess? I mean, it's one thing to be able to quote scripture, that is a good skill. Memorization of scripture is good, but it has to be appropriate and used appropriately. If you're just cracking a joke here that's fine, but too many of the same evangelicals I mentioned in my first posts here can quote scripture like a boss but can only take it at exactly face value. "It says here demons often appear like angels of the light - surely that can only mean literally demons and literally looking like angels. No way it can be anything else!!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Satan often times comes as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14) So how could anyone tell if the message is from God or Satan then? Does Satan want you to kill babies because evil or is it because God wants to smash little ones against the rocks because God? Sounds like a catch-22 to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Yeah but sometimes he looks like a big demon thing I guess? I mean, it's one thing to be able to quote scripture, that is a good skill. Memorization of scripture is good, but it has to be appropriate and used appropriately. If you're just cracking a joke here that's fine, but too many of the same evangelicals I mentioned in my first posts here can quote scripture like a boss but can only take it at exactly face value. "It says here demons often appear like angels of the light - surely that can only mean literally demons and literally looking like angels. No way it can be anything else!!" No thats not what I meant by that, I was pointing out that biblical demons do not always look like a villain in Diablo 2. Your right about applying and interpreting the scriptures is a key to helping others. Really the Bible does not spend a whole lot of time talking about Satan, but from what I gather here are some of the forms he appears as the son of the morning (Isaiah) walking around on the earth (Job) angel of light (Corinthians) serpent in the garden (Eden) dragon + false prophet + the beast (Revelation) demon possessed crazy people (the Gospels) as a voice that led David to take a census of the people against God's orders (1 Kings) a voice that tempted Jesus in the wilderness (Gospels)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Slaan posted:So how could anyone tell if the message is from God or Satan then? Does Satan want you to kill babies because evil or is it because God wants to smash little ones against the rocks because God? Sounds like a catch-22 to me. Well in one since it can obviously be very difficult. After all, a angel of light sounds like something good. The instructions in 1 John 4 are as follows Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. we are supposed to test the spirits to see if they acknowledge Christ as the master. Part of the reason it is worded as it is, "in the flesh" is because of the gnostic heresy of the first few centuries (even today) that insisted that matter was evil and spirit was good. Jesus was not a sort of spirit but actually came in the flesh according to scriptures Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
So evil spirits would be incapable of lying?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:So evil spirits would be incapable of lying? Sure they can lie, but as I see it, even demons are held accountable for lying about being holy angels / messengers and they fear that sort of thing (being judged by God for misconduct). It would be like impersonating a police officer. Using Job as an example, Satan is given a little bit of capabilities over this realm, but only what God allows. The scriptures teach this as how to deal with spirits, so they seem to be held to the standard of what it says in the book, also it says that we will not be tempted beyond what we can bear (if your a believer) so that is more evidence that demons don't have free reign to lie about Christ Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Yeah but that doesn't help you whatsoever. If you rob me blind of all my possessions while impersonating a police officer, you might get in trouble but that doesn't mean I am any less screwed. e. So the believer's 'protection' is to bear it and reap the rewards in the afterlife?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Yeah but that doesn't help you whatsoever. Well, it would be like impersonating a police officer with a real police officer in the car with you, since this police officer is omniscient (all seeing) and omnipotent (all powerful)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:
I think your way off base using Elijah on mount Carmel as evidence of the Bible being a polytheistic work. What defines Yahweh as the one true God? He created the universe. He is the only sovereign God there is. He holds complete power over all other spiritual forces. He controls heaven and earth completely. God being creator and sustainer is what makes Him the true God. If you are worshiping a baal or an asteroth pole or dagon or any other entity, you would be worshiping a lesser being and therefore it would not be God. If you can think of a higher being in existence, than the first thing is not God. Paramemetic you mentioned earlier about Buddhist studies. I admit I don't know a great deal about that belief system, but one thing I do admire about it is its self denial tenants as a means of overcoming evil (probably an oversimplification) Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Free masons, Baltimore, finding God and good medicine. I think this was a response to my previous post. Thank you for sharing, it sounds like you had a trying time. I am glad that you are doing better now. I hope you will respond to the other questions in my original post, when you have time: - What do you hope to do once you have completed your education? - What is the meaning of life to you? Also, I would appreciate hearing your perspective on the Binding of Isaac. The biblical story of Abraham and his son, I mean, not the video game. Though feel free to talk about the game if you want to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Solumin posted:I think this was a response to my previous post. Thank you for sharing, it sounds like you had a trying time. I am glad that you are doing better now. My goal is to become a pastor. I feel like I can do the public speaking and I enjoy the theology and learning the biblical languages and so on and so forth. I will probably have to start at a small church that might be in decline (usually from lack of the younger generation's participation) Then I will have to see where life takes me from that point! The meaning of life to me involves realization and cultivation. The realization is that all my anxiety problems that used to plague me and my insufficiencies that made me an outcast could be turned around. The realization of a greater being than myself of whom to serve that promises to take care of me forever. Cultivating the fields of life is the other part. Whatever your work is, to cultivate its improvement and to make your work fruitful. For me that involves tending to my vegetables, cultivating my prayer life, increasing my understanding of theology and scriptural teachings, tending to folks at the nursing home, looking after grandma, etc. This goes back to the orginal task given to humanity in the Garden of Eden, to cultivate their home. There is an interesting parallel between the story of Abraham's binding of Isaac with the New Testament. At the last minute as Abraham was going to plunge the knife into Isaac, God told Abraham to stop. He did not need him to shed this innocent blood, and instead they sacrificed the ram. Then 2000 years later Jesus comes along and He in fact was not spared but had to die. God did not ask Abraham to do something God Himself was not willing to do (sacrificing His own Son)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:There is an interesting parallel between the story of Abraham's binding of Isaac with the New Testament. At the last minute as Abraham was going to plunge the knife into Isaac, God told Abraham to stop. He did not need him to shed this innocent blood, and instead they sacrificed the ram. Then 2000 years later Jesus comes along and He in fact was not spared but had to die. God did not ask Abraham to do something God Himself was not willing to do (sacrificing His own Son) So, God played chicken with innocent lives and that's okay? So what about killing all the first borns in Egypt? Or flooding the Earth in a global genocide?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Sure they can lie, but as I see it, even demons are held accountable for lying about being holy angels / messengers and they fear that sort of thing (being judged by God for misconduct). It would be like impersonating a police officer. This doesn't make much sense - they are already an evil spirit doing evil spirit things. This is like figuring a bank robber might not speed in the getaway vehicle for fear that he might get a speeding ticket. I think a much better explanation or answer to this would be that spirits themselves have agency and anti-Christian spirits aren't going to do things that could be considered contractually binding later on. There is a recurring theme both in and out of the Bible where spirits are more or less bound to their word, for a variety of reasons depending on tradition. It's not quite like asking a cop "are you a cop, you have to tell me if you are!" on a torrent website, and more along the lines of if spirits claim to be cops, then they effectively become cops, because their manifestation is not corporeal and it takes significant mental capacity to maintain that kind of mental reservation. Understanding that people are capable of lying, as are spirits, and so on, is the reason for the inclusion of language about "deception, equivocation, or mental reservation," and the question of mental reservation itself factors heavily in Jesuit ethics and so on from around the time of the Middle Ages. quote:Using Job as an example, Satan is given a little bit of capabilities over this realm, but only what God allows. The scriptures teach this as how to deal with spirits, so they seem to be held to the standard of what it says in the book, also it says that we will not be tempted beyond what we can bear (if your a believer) so that is more evidence that demons don't have free reign to lie about Christ If demons have free will of their own, then of course they can lie about those things. But this edges heavily towards sorcery and so on which the Bible is fairly silent about the mechanics of generally. Yehoshua Eben posted:I think your way off base using Elijah on mount Carmel as evidence of the Bible being a polytheistic work. What defines Yahweh as the one true God? He created the universe. He is the only sovereign God there is. He holds complete power over all other spiritual forces. He controls heaven and earth completely. God being creator and sustainer is what makes Him the true God. If you are worshiping a baal or an asteroth pole or dagon or any other entity, you would be worshiping a lesser being and therefore it would not be God. If you can think of a higher being in existence, than the first thing is not God. This begs the question. If we assume god exists and those things are true, then we don't need to ask the question about other deities existing and so on. I don't believe that those things are true about god because those things are, to my mind, inconsistent with what I can plainly observe - that god is himself a composite thing that is subject to cause and effect, and that, being a composite thing, subject to cause and effect, and possessed of conceptual thinking, god is impermanent and samsaric - god exists within this world of suffering and is subject to it. So with that being the case, I don't see god as a creator of some sort. For example, if god is a creator god, and god created the universe, then it follows logically that god is only a creator dependent upon the creation, like a father only becomes a father once they have a child. If that's the case, then god is not omnipotent. If god was a creator prior to the creation, then god's engaging in the act of creation was arbitrary, and so too was god's formation of moral law. If god creates moral laws that are easily broken, then punishes those who commit them, then god is cruel. If god does not create those moral laws, then god is subject to them. God also demonstrates inconsistency in the issuing of moral law - "thou shalt not kill (except when it's expedient to my ends)" for example. So you have testified to all these things about god's nature, but they don't hold up logically. I mean, god might be the biggest, baddest god out there, there might be none higher than god, but if god is just another being in the world of suffering, which his actions indicate to me, as recorded in the Bible, anyhow, then there's no shelter in this storm to be found with god. quote:Paramemetic you mentioned earlier about Buddhist studies. I admit I don't know a great deal about that belief system, but one thing I do admire about it is its self denial tenants as a means of overcoming evil (probably an oversimplification) It is a bit of an oversimplication because Buddhism doesn't really have much interest in dualistic concepts like good and evil - good and evil are mental conceptualizations, they're something we ascribe to something else. Buddhism does recognize suffering as the basic state of this world we live in, and the problem we are trying to solve, and Buddha, through observation, recognized that the causes of suffering are ignorance, attachment, and aversion. So for example, Buddhists observer certain ethical precepts (don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't engage in sexual misconduct, don't partake of intoxicants that cause heedlessness), but the reason for observing this is not divine command or fiat, rather it's that not observing them invariably leads to suffering. When we kill, we create suffering immediately for the being we kill, and for those close to them, and so on, likewise stealing, etc. etc. So the self-denial is present, but it's not really about avoiding evil; rather, it's about not creating the causes of suffering. This is also a foundation for my assertion that the Christian God lacks compassion, which you yourself supported with your mentioning his great compassion and care for his chosen people, in stark contrast to his lack of compassion and disregard for other people. That lacks the qualities of universal compassion that I find very important for a spiritual guide or shelter. If a being lacks that kind of universal compassion, then definitely we know that they themselves are susceptible to suffering, and so cannot possibly be relied on in any ultimate way, though they may be very reliable in a temporary way. If you're interested, there is an A/T thread about Buddhism where we could continue the Buddhist discussion, whereas this is your thread and should be about your beliefs and experiences and so on, specifically from within the Baptist seminary. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:There is an interesting parallel between the story of Abraham's binding of Isaac with the New Testament. At the last minute as Abraham was going to plunge the knife into Isaac, God told Abraham to stop. He did not need him to shed this innocent blood, and instead they sacrificed the ram. Then 2000 years later Jesus comes along and He in fact was not spared but had to die. God did not ask Abraham to do something God Himself was not willing to do (sacrificing His own Son) I think this is a great example of where I find the compassion of the Christian God deficient. "Don't murder that innocent human being! Instead, murder that innocent animal for no reason!" I mean, one can make a justification for killing animals for food, lots of people eat animals and that's unfortunate but it's an institution and is what it is. But "don't shed that innocent blood, kill this animal instead" is a bit of a leap for me. What made the ram not "innocent?" In Buddhism, we see animals as less fortunate, they don't have as easy a time studying Dharma, they are constantly driven by ignorance and just go around doing whatever to get food all the time, and so on (whereas humans are driven by desire, but we have the capacity to easily learn the difference between virtue and non-virtue). So one way, I can say that a ram is not as fortunate as a human being, but I can also definitely say that a ram is a sentient being. It's capable of suffering, it's capable of fear, it has a desire to stay alive, and it feels pain and knows suffering. So this idea of "okay, it's fine, swap out the human child for the animal child" is rather cruel, especially because there's no reason to kill either of them. It's completely arbitrary, just whimsical. Edit: I would also point out that the only reason Jesus had to die in fulfillment of the covenant is because God made the covenant in the first place. Again, if god is omnipotent and the absolute divine creator, then that covenant only exists because he set it up that way. Furthermore, it also means god isn't really omnipotent, because there exists contracts and covenants that are binding upon him, and so his power is limited. If that's not the case, and there isn't a law that is binding upon god, then that god is just a dick for setting up that particular situation in the first place. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:
In Christianity God is in no way contingent on the creation, because He is transcendent beyond the creation. Pantheism is a no no as well. He is not bound by any limitation in the creation. God is Father because He has a Son that is also transcendent beyond all time, space, and any other limitation. He came incarnate to the earth as Jesus but he ascended back to heaven and is now in session with God the Father while the Holy Spirit ministers by dwelling in those in covenant with God. God is completely independent of the creation, He exists beyond its realm. I think a more accurate version of the command "thou shalt not kill" is "thou shalt not murder" I realize some translations such as the King James render it as not to "kill" but in light of the evidence present elsewhere in the Pentateuch such as "no one will be put to death based on the witness of one person" shows that execution is acceptable given its adherence to the Law. Yes, in many instances in the Old Testament God commanded His people to kill other people. I do believe you could say the creation of the universe is arbitrary. That I wont contest, there existed no compulsion upon God to create it. What I intended to say is that this is my definition of what God is regardless of anything else: God is the Sovereign creator and sustainer of the universe. With that in mind, if one then seeks to find the identity of said being, Christianity makes a better claim than any other religion to this entity is what I hold to Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
regarding animal sacrifices as being gratuitous suffering The Levitical priest were actually allowed to eat parts of the sacrifices given in the tabernacle / temple. True, not all of the types of sacrifices were allowed to be eaten, but many of them were. Not everyone agrees that it is inhumane to kill an animal if you have a valid reason for doing so. If a coyote was going after your chickens you could justifiably shoot that coyote, although all you would really loose in the end is some of your birds. Is that any more justifiable than a priest offering up the sacrifice (then oftentimes eating portions of it) for the atonement of peoples sins? In no way was God contingent on the blood of the animals to forgive people of their sins. This is shown in the New Covenant, where no longer is the blood of bulls required. Its purpose was to show the consequence of sinning. God hates sin and it is more heinous to him and he makes it clear through one having to kill an innocent animal or His own son to be forgiven for it. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Is that any more justifiable than a priest offering up the sacrifice (then oftentimes eating portions of it) for the atonement of peoples sins? Yes. Because one has an actual impact in real life, and I really don't want to encourage a return to animal sacrifices for silly reasons. Waiting for your answer to my previous question about God killing Egyptian first borns and playing chicken with people's kids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
I am Jewish, can you speak a little bit about what you feel will happen to me when I die, assuming I don't accept Jesus before then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:18
|
|
