Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Jack Knave on July 31, 2015, 08:17:23 PM
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
God doesn't get it wrong: people do. Jesus came to put it right.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
The question isn't even right. When did you stop beating your wife?
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
What evidence do you have that God got it wrong the first time round? Could it have been that the Jews got it wrong?
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
Firstly, what incompetence? Secondly, can I ask that you use the commonly accepted English pronoun for a sentient being of no specific gender, not 'it'. Thanks.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
You really are desperate Jack,with a thread like this.It is shame you know nothing about which you write,but it is not a surprise. ::)
~TW~
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
Good doesn't get it wrong: people do. Jesus came to put it right.
Still didn't work though did it ?
So God tried to get his message through to mankind via a string of Jewish prophets but it really wasn't working so out of frustration he incarnates his own son to go down and enunciate his message with better clarity telling us that the previous guys had got it largely wrong, God is not some fiery legalistic tyrant at all, he actually really loves everyone, even the damn foreigners and all we have to do is believe that and we can live forever.
It's still not working though is it. There is too much room for misinterpretation, too much scope for mistranslation and mistake in that sort of communication, and most people still find the message implausible. God should have foreseen that and devised a better means of communication, not so vulnerable to debate and confusion.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
What evidence do you have that God got it wrong the first time round? Could it have been that the Jews got it wrong?
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
Firstly, what incompetence? Secondly, can I ask that you use the commonly accepted English pronoun for a sentient being of no specific gender, not 'it'. Thanks.
If the deity was responsible for creation then it screwed up BIG TIME when it devised human nature. But maybe that was its aim all along so it could enjoy human suffering!
-
It's still not working though is it. There is too much room for misinterpretation, too much scope for mistranslation and mistake in that sort of communication, and most people still find the message implausible. God should have foreseen that and devised a better means of communication, not so vulnerable to debate and confusion.
Exactly! How could such a wise being as "God" is supposed to be make such a balls-up of getting his message across?
That people are still taken in by the story is laughable, and desperately sad at the same time. :(
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
I would argue that it always was just meant to be a precursor to a newer and better covenant.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
I would argue that it always was just meant to be a precursor to a newer and better covenant.
Why didn't the deity get it right the first time?
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
I would argue that it always was just meant to be a precursor to a newer and better covenant.
Why didn't the deity get it right the first time?
Right? It was "right" but only for a certain people for a certain time.
-
Secondly, can I ask that you use the commonly accepted English pronoun for a sentient being of no specific gender
If God is so great why did she get it wrong first time round and why did she have to issue a second covenant?
-
Secondly, can I ask that you use the commonly accepted English pronoun for a sentient being of no specific gender
If God is so great why did she get it wrong first time round and why did she have to issue a second covenant?
If the deity was female there wouldn't have been an issue, she would have got it right first time around! ;D ;D ;D
-
Secondly, can I ask that you use the commonly accepted English pronoun for a sentient being of no specific gender
If God is so great why did she get it wrong first time round and why did she have to issue a second covenant?
Sorry jeremy, 'she' is gender-specific in English, and as such, it is no better than 'it'. Mind you, as the Jews knew, God was both male and female in being, hence of the 144 Jewish names for God 72 are female and 72 are male.
-
If the deity was female there wouldn't have been an issue, she would have got it right first time around! ;D ;D ;D
Do you have any evidence that supports your claim that he (in its proper English sense) didn't get things right the first time round?
-
In reply to all the ignorant posts made here: as I said earlier ( M1. Do people actually read posts? Or are they just unable to understand?) Jesus came to give us the New Covenant, which He did with the utmost clarity. It is people who fail to appreciate what is asked, not the fault of God. They ailed in OT times, not surprisingly, the majority still do; or care not enough. Of course, there are those atheists who simply assert that God is wrong, never that people are misguided.
-
I'd be very interested for you to produce an atheist who thinks that God was/is wrong, as opposed to non-existent (which is generally the definition of an atheist).
-
I'd be very interested for you to produce an atheist who thinks that God was/is wrong, as opposed to non-existent (which is generally the definition of an atheist).
Still blathering about God. Do give up, and save me the time and effort of having to refute the codswallop you all produce.
-
I've never known you to put any time and effort into refuting anything, so I can't see you starting now.
-
I've never known you to put any time and effort into refuting anything, so I can't see you starting now.
So what have you been reading these last x years? As I just said: you clearly do not read posts , or simply fail to understand.
-
Of course, there are those atheists who simply assert that God is wrong, never that people are misguided.
Not this one: atheists don't hold beliefs about Gods, and tend to reject the basis of the beliefs that are held by theists.
I'm quite happy to say that people are often misguided: this seems to be self-evident throughout history.
-
I'd be very interested for you to produce an atheist who thinks that God was/is wrong, as opposed to non-existent (which is generally the definition of an atheist).
Still blathering about God. Do give up, and save me the time and effort of having to refute the codswallop you all produce.
Not blathering about God; highlighting an illogical statement of yours regarding atheists thinking that God was/is wrong, when atheists by definition don't believe in a God to be wrong (or right, or anything) in the first place.
-
It's still not working though is it. There is too much room for misinterpretation, too much scope for mistranslation and mistake in that sort of communication, and most people still find the message implausible. God should have foreseen that and devised a better means of communication, not so vulnerable to debate and confusion.
Exactly! How could such a wise being as "God" is supposed to be make such a balls-up of getting his message across?
That people are still taken in by the story is laughable, and desperately sad at the same time. :(
You'd think an entity capable of creating a universe out of nothing would find that sort of thing a doddle, wouldn't you?
-
I'd be very interested for you to produce an atheist who thinks that God was/is wrong, as opposed to non-existent (which is generally the definition of an atheist).
Still blathering about God. Do give up, and save me the time and effort of having to refute the codswallop you all produce.
Not blathering about God; highlighting an illogical statement of yours regarding atheists thinking that God was/is wrong, when atheists by definition don't believe in a God to be wrong (or right, or anything) in the first place.
So, once again ( If I only had a pound for the times I've said that!), why are you here, discussing something you don't believe exists!!
-
I'd be very interested for you to produce an atheist who thinks that God was/is wrong, as opposed to non-existent (which is generally the definition of an atheist).
Still blathering about God. Do give up, and save me the time and effort of having to refute the codswallop you all produce.
Not blathering about God; highlighting an illogical statement of yours regarding atheists thinking that God was/is wrong, when atheists by definition don't believe in a God to be wrong (or right, or anything) in the first place.
So, once again ( If I only had a pound for the times I've said that!), why are you here, discussing something you don't believe exists!!
Gods don't exist, but beliefs do.
That is why we are here.
-
I'd be very interested for you to produce an atheist who thinks that God was/is wrong, as opposed to non-existent (which is generally the definition of an atheist).
Still blathering about God. Do give up, and save me the time and effort of having to refute the codswallop you all produce.
Not blathering about God; highlighting an illogical statement of yours regarding atheists thinking that God was/is wrong, when atheists by definition don't believe in a God to be wrong (or right, or anything) in the first place.
So, once again ( If I only had a pound for the times I've said that!), why are you here, discussing something you don't believe exists!!
Gods don't exist, but beliefs do.
That is why we are here.
Oh? And what do you believe that brings you so often to the Christian Topic?
-
Get it now?
-
Get it now?
I have no idea what you are saying - as is so often the case with yourself. :)
-
The answer to your perennial question of why atheists are here (other than the fact that this is a forum to discuss religion and ethics, and anyone, theist or atheist, is perfectly entitled to be) is that while gods don't exist, belief in gods does exist, and that's weird and an interesting thing to discuss.
-
The answer to your perennial question of why atheists are here (other than the fact that this is a forum to discuss religion and ethics, and anyone, theist or atheist, is perfectly entitled to be) is that while gods don't exist, belief in gods does exist, and that's weird and an interesting thing to discuss.
Usual lame and unconvincing answer. I reckon you must have exhausted any line of discussion or interest long ago: it has long since descended into blind obsession.
-
Not at all; people still keep on coming out with some right old nutty shit, to use the technical term.
-
Not at all; people still keep on coming out with some right old nutty shut, to use the technical term.
Such as?
-
Alan Burns's ongoing headlong flight from reality is one example that springs immediately to mind.
-
Sorry jeremy, 'she' is gender-specific in English, and as such, it is no better than 'it'.
Welcome to the 21st century. "She" is now accepted as a gender neutral pronoun. In fact I see it used in that scenario quite commonly.
Mind you, as the Jews knew, God was both male and female in being, hence of the 144 Jewish names for God 72 are female and 72 are male.
So there is no problem with using the term "she".
-
Sorry jeremy, 'she' is gender-specific in English, and as such, it is no better than 'it'.
Welcome to the 21st century. "She" is now accepted as a gender neutral pronoun. In fact I see it used in that scenario quite commonly.
Mind you, as the Jews knew, God was both male and female in being, hence of the 144 Jewish names for God 72 are female and 72 are male.
So there is no problem with using the term "she".
Since Jesus always referred to "our Father," I for one will stick to that. Not that it is of any great matter.
-
So, once again ( If I only had a pound for the times I've said that!), why are you here, discussing something you don't believe exists!!
Gods don't exist, but beliefs do.
That is why we are here.
Oh? And what do you believe that brings you so often to the Christian Topic?
That's how we resolve disputes, that's how we move forward, by arguing it out. No area of human discourse is immune to this, even scientists debate, often fiercely. Maybe my belief, such as it is, if I have one, is in the value of reason.
-
So, once again ( If I only had a pound for the times I've said that!), why are you here, discussing something you don't believe exists!!
Gods don't exist, but beliefs do.
That is why we are here.
Oh? And what do you believe that brings you so often to the Christian Topic?
That's how we resolve disputes, that's how we move forward, by arguing it out. No area of human discourse is immune to this, even scientists debate, often fiercely. Maybe my belief, such as it is, if I have one, is in the value of reason.
I think you are confusing debate with refutation, which is almost all that goes on here.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
God doesn't get it wrong: people do. Jesus came to put it right.
1) God made people so why did they go wrong?
2) Didn't It see that coming? If It did then why didn't God put it right right at the start like any other sensible intelligent being?
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
God doesn't get it wrong: people do. Jesus came to put it right.
1) God made people so why did they go wrong?
2) Didn't It see that coming? If It did then why didn't God put it right right at the start like any other sensible intelligent being?
People were made with a free will, to do as they wish. Some choose to do wrong. That is all there is to it. What would the point have been to make a species of perfect beings? They would just be aimless robots.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
The question isn't even right. When did you stop beating your wife?
There are two questions there. 1) Address them both and 2) which one are you referring too?
-
I think you are confusing debate with refutation, which is almost all that goes on here.
Because there's so much put forward to be refuted, presumably.
-
I think you are confusing debate with refutation, which is almost all that goes on here.
Because there's so much put forward to be refuted, presumably.
No. I think you've totally over-refuted by now. :)
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
What evidence do you have that God got it wrong the first time round? Could it have been that the Jews got it wrong?
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
Firstly, what incompetence? Secondly, can I ask that you use the commonly accepted English pronoun for a sentient being of no specific gender, not 'it'. Thanks.
God made people, so you lot claim so the onus is on the manufacturer - this is the incompetence, and therefore getting it wrong with version 1.0 with the Jews.
I use what I like for God. It is exactly that, It.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
You really are desperate Jack,with a thread like this.It is shame you know nothing about which you write,but it is not a surprise. ::)
~TW~
It's logic and common-sense. JC had to come, as claimed, to put right the mess his 'father' had made.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
I would argue that it always was just meant to be a precursor to a newer and better covenant.
Go on then, I'm listening.
-
It didn't get it right, it didn't get it wrong, it's highly unlikely it is; is it?
ippy
-
Go on then, I'm listening.
If you study the Old Covenant, you will find that it was made between God and the people of Israel for a particular purpose. They were to serve as witnesses to God's love for the people of the 'world' (and that may have meant those people groups amongst whom the People of Israel lived at the time, or might have meant the wider people groups of the world, through indirect transmission - such as trade). As we also know, the leaders of the people twisted this, deciding to tell the people that they had been chosen as a special nation, and to restrict the knowledge of this God to themselves.
The Old Testament record suggests that God suspected that this would happen, but chose to allow the people of Israel to make their own choices.
The result was that God's 'Plan B', as it were, had to be enacted which led to the good news of God's love for humanity being made available to all humanity through the 'New' Covenant.
Again, the people of the New Covenant haven't always served the purpose particularly well, but have also had their covenant hijacked by the likes of Constantine and his family; other authorities and even some power-greedy churchmen - such as the Borgias.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
I would argue that it always was just meant to be a precursor to a newer and better covenant.
Go on then, I'm listening.
That it was always part of God's plan, so the speak, that the old covenant was only for a certain people for a certain time, that is until the Christ should come and inaugurate a new covenant. In otherwords, God intended the old covenant to only be a preparation for the new.
-
Hope.
The new covenant was never hijacked by Constantine. That's just rubbish.
-
It didn't get it right, it didn't get it wrong, it's highly unlikely it is; is it?
ippy
Don't know, ippy; the post doesn't seem to be in English. OK, it is made up of English words, but English words (even those used in Essex) have to be combined in such a way as to make sense.
-
Hope.
The new covenant was never hijacked by Constantine. That's just rubbish.
Sorry, ad_o, but history tells us that Constantine and his family - and hence the Romans - adopted Christianity as a way of overcoming the problems that had begun to develop as an increasing number of higher-level citizens of Rome and the Empire took it on board. As you will agrre, in th early days (the first couple of hundred years), the church was predominantly made up of the poor, the enslaved and the dienfranchised with a smattering of more educated people. Remember too, that a couple of Constantine's familial successors sought to roll back the acceptance of Christianity, to the extent that itwasn't fully accepted by Rome for several decades after Constantine's death.
-
1) God made people so why did they go wrong?
2) Didn't It see that coming? If It did then why didn't God put it right right at the start like any other sensible intelligent being?
People were made with a free will, to do as they wish. Some choose to do wrong. That is all there is to it. What would the point have been to make a species of perfect beings? They would just be aimless robots.
That's just your belief, of course. There's no scientific evidence to support the belief in free will.
-
Hope.
The new covenant was never hijacked by Constantine. That's just rubbish.
Sorry, ad_o, but history tells us that Constantine and his family - and hence the Romans - adopted Christianity as a way of overcoming the problems that had begun to develop as an increasing number of higher-level citizens of Rome and the Empire took it on board. As you will agrre, in th early days (the first couple of hundred years), the church was predominantly made up of the poor, the enslaved and the dienfranchised with a smattering of more educated people. Remember too, that a couple of Constantine's familial successors sought to roll back the acceptance of Christianity, to the extent that itwasn't fully accepted by Rome for several decades after Constantine's death.
You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward. It was part of God's plan that the Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian. For that we can thank Ss. Constantine, Helena and Theodosius.
-
It didn't get it right, it didn't get it wrong, it's highly unlikely it is; is it?
ippy
Don't know, ippy; the post doesn't seem to be in English. OK, it is made up of English words, but English words (even those used in Essex) have to be combined in such a way as to make sense.
A few people on this forum could do with taking that message to heart, starting with Sassy.
-
That's how we resolve disputes, that's how we move forward, by arguing it out. No area of human discourse is immune to this, even scientists debate, often fiercely. Maybe my belief, such as it is, if I have one, is in the value of reason.
I think you are confusing debate with refutation, which is almost all that goes on here.
Maybe. But there is some debate as well; you'd do well to pay attention to that and resist the temptation to indulge in all the tit for tat stuff ;)
-
You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward.
Right. Here's a bridge I own. Do you want to buy it?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Cmglee_Tower_Bridge_tall_ship.jpg
-
::)
-
Pretty sure that was Jeremy's reaction as well.
-
It didn't get it right, it didn't get it wrong, it's highly unlikely it is; is it?
ippy
Don't know, ippy; the post doesn't seem to be in English. OK, it is made up of English words, but English words (even those used in Essex) have to be combined in such a way as to make sense.
I note you seem to like your limited little world Hope.
ippy
-
I note you seem to like your limited little world Hope.
ippy
'Limited'? What's limited about one of the world's most widespread languages? Just because Estuary English hasn't really got much beyond the boundaries of the Thames estuary.
-
I note you seem to like your limited little world Hope.
ippy
'Limited'? What's limited about one of the world's most widespread languages? Just because Estuary English hasn't really got much beyond the boundaries of the Thames estuary.
No need to get shirty Hope just because the weather here is much more sunny and warm than wet and windy Wales.
ippy
-
I note you seem to like your limited little world Hope.
ippy
'Limited'? What's limited about one of the world's most widespread languages? Just because Estuary English hasn't really got much beyond the boundaries of the Thames estuary.
Ah, but that's well-spoken ENGLISH, Hope! All the others are distortions of English. :P
-
No need to get shirty Hope just because the weather here is much more sunny and warm than wet and windy Wales.
Warm and sunny? South-East England? I think you must have the wrong idea about S. E. England, ippy. As I understand it, it has average temperatures perhaps a degree or two above those of South East Wales (where I currently live) and perhaps three quarters of the rainfall of S.E Wales. If you want warm and sunny, you need to go to South East Europe/Northern Africa/the Middle East, and places on that type of latitude. Much further south, it's no longer warm, but hot.
-
Ah, but that's well-spoken ENGLISH, Hope! All the others are distortions of English. :P
Sorry, Len, did you call it wewl-spowken English? As a Cockney by birth, I wouldn't knock proper London English - just the affected Estuary version.
-
Ah, but that's well-spoken ENGLISH, Hope! All the others are distortions of English. :P
Sorry, Len, did you call it wewl-spowken English? As a Cockney by birth, I wouldn't knock proper London English - just the affected Estuary version.
Oh, sorry again mate. I've never heard of Estuary English, and assumed it meant Standard Southern English, as it was referred to in my day.
-
Oh, sorry again mate. I've never heard of Estuary English, and assumed it meant Standard Southern English, as it was referred to in my day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary_English
-
Oh, sorry again mate. I've never heard of Estuary English, and assumed it meant Standard Southern English, as it was referred to in my day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary_English
Wow! What a mess! For me, the best English is that spoken by the BBC announcers in my younger days. I believe it was referred to as Standard Southern English, not to be confused with the rather affected Oxford English.
-
Ah, but that's well-spoken ENGLISH, Hope! All the others are distortions of English. :P
Sorry, Len, did you call it wewl-spowken English? As a Cockney by birth, I wouldn't knock proper London English - just the affected Estuary version.
Oh, sorry again mate. I've never heard of Estuary English, and assumed it meant Standard Southern English, as it was referred to in my day.
Hi there Len, I've a London accent myself, incidentally have you ever noticed that London is the only place in the UK that doesn't really have a local accent, but my two boys brought up here in northern Essex do surprise me from time to time there's a tendency to not pronounce "T's", and there are a lot of Natterleys here, it makes me smile every time I hear this name pronounced by our locals, tattoos are referred to as tats, etc etc.
Oh by the way Len, American or not I think there must have been some very heavy indoctrination applied there to an in the first place a particularly credulous subject, when or where?
ippy
-
Oh by the way Len, American or not I think there must have been some very heavy indoctrination applied there to an in the first place a particularly credulous subject, when or where?
ippy
I'm sorry mate, but I can't make sense of that question. Can you rephrase it for an old guy, and I'll answer it? :(
-
I've a London accent myself, incidentally have you ever noticed that London is the only place in the UK that doesn't really have a local accent
Eh? I was born in the East End of London and lived in London for 25 years and I'm pretty sure that there is a London accent, unless I've been mistaken all these years.
-
Hope.
The new covenant was never hijacked by Constantine. That's just rubbish.
Sorry, ad_o, but history tells us that Constantine and his family - and hence the Romans - adopted Christianity as a way of overcoming the problems that had begun to develop as an increasing number of higher-level citizens of Rome and the Empire took it on board. As you will agrre, in th early days (the first couple of hundred years), the church was predominantly made up of the poor, the enslaved and the dienfranchised with a smattering of more educated people. Remember too, that a couple of Constantine's familial successors sought to roll back the acceptance of Christianity, to the extent that itwasn't fully accepted by Rome for several decades after Constantine's death.
You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward. It was part of God's plan that the Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian. For that we can thank Ss. Constantine, Helena and Theodosius.
-
I agree with Hope - and I haven't read Gibbon.
Constantine was a political animal - he wanted armies, and Christians were ripe for the legions.
After his supposed vision at Milvian Bridge, he kept his options open - actualy sponsoring building work to the "unconconquered sun" and Mithras, whilst cosying up to the Christians.
Not exactly faith in one God, was it?
The Empire would have become Christian in a few decades, with or without Constantine's help - numbers of believers were growing exponentially.
What Constantine DID do was impose an Imperial style beaurocracy, with it's endless red tape, rank, privilage and opportunity for corruption, on the church.
Constantine was a genious - a military strategist par excellence, a political animal to boot.
Religion wise, he kept his cards close to his chest - only 'converting' when he was about to snuff it.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
I suppose the reality is that;
God went from adult to baby with mankind...
But in the spiritual life he has gone from baby to adult so that man had to learn and know who God is, to be able to bring him back to the truth and save his life.
God got NOTHING wrong. He has done everything according to his will to save all mankind. It started with a few and then added the rest.
The bible does reveal this if you actually read it...
-
Hope.
The new covenant was never hijacked by Constantine. That's just rubbish.
Sorry, ad_o, but history tells us that Constantine and his family - and hence the Romans - adopted Christianity as a way of overcoming the problems that had begun to develop as an increasing number of higher-level citizens of Rome and the Empire took it on board. As you will agrre, in th early days (the first couple of hundred years), the church was predominantly made up of the poor, the enslaved and the dienfranchised with a smattering of more educated people. Remember too, that a couple of Constantine's familial successors sought to roll back the acceptance of Christianity, to the extent that itwasn't fully accepted by Rome for several decades after Constantine's death.
You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward. It was part of God's plan that the Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian. For that we can thank Ss. Constantine, Helena and Theodosius.
-
I agree with Hope - and I haven't read Gibbon.
Constantine was a political animal - he wanted armies, and Christians were ripe for the legions.
After his supposed vision at Milvian Bridge, he kept his options open - actualy sponsoring building work to the "unconconquered sun" and Mithras, whilst cosying up to the Christians.
Not exactly faith in one God, was it?
The Empire would have become Christian in a few decades, with or without Constantine's help - numbers of believers were growing exponentially.
What Constantine DID do was impose an Imperial style beaurocracy, with it's endless red tape, rank, privilage and opportunity for corruption, on the church.
Constantine was a genious - a military strategist par excellence, a political animal to boot.
Religion wise, he kept his cards close to his chest - only 'converting' when he was about to snuff it.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, innit. But for my part I do believe the visions him a d his mother received were genuine and that they have both received their reward in heaven.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
God doesn't get it wrong: people do. Jesus came to put it right.
1) God made people so why did they go wrong?
2) Didn't It see that coming? If It did then why didn't God put it right right at the start like any other sensible intelligent being?
People were made with a free will, to do as they wish. Some choose to do wrong. That is all there is to it. What would the point have been to make a species of perfect beings? They would just be aimless robots.
Yes, as the dogma goes, people were made with freewill. Made by God, so again the manufacturer is to blame!!!
Providing them with freewill doesn't make God's project meaningful, does it? Why did God bother in the first place, It had no reason to do so?
If God didn't bother what would It have lost, and in creating the universe what has God gained?
-
Since Jesus always referred to "our Father," I for one will stick to that. Not that it is of any great matter.
Since the (overwhelmingly male) editors of the works that became the New Testament rendered a term that the patriarchic society that poetically translated the works chose to render as 'our Father' you can choose to think that Jesus said 'our Father', but not really anything more.
As ever, it's not a demonstrable fact or even reasonably solid deduction, it's an assertion.
-
Since Jesus always referred to "our Father," I for one will stick to that. Not that it is of any great matter.
Since the (overwhelmingly male) editors of the works that became the New Testament rendered a term that the patriarchic society that poetically translated the works chose to render as 'our Father' you can choose to think that Jesus said 'our Father', but not really anything more.
As ever, it's not a demonstrable fact or even reasonably solid deduction, it's an assertion.
In which case that applies to almost any piece of history.
-
Go on then, I'm listening.
If you study the Old Covenant, you will find that it was made between God and the people of Israel for a particular purpose. They were to serve as witnesses to God's love for the people of the 'world' (and that may have meant those people groups amongst whom the People of Israel lived at the time, or might have meant the wider people groups of the world, through indirect transmission - such as trade). As we also know, the leaders of the people twisted this, deciding to tell the people that they had been chosen as a special nation, and to restrict the knowledge of this God to themselves.
The Old Testament record suggests that God suspected that this would happen, but chose to allow the people of Israel to make their own choices.
The result was that God's 'Plan B', as it were, had to be enacted which led to the good news of God's love for humanity being made available to all humanity through the 'New' Covenant.
Again, the people of the New Covenant haven't always served the purpose particularly well, but have also had their covenant hijacked by the likes of Constantine and his family; other authorities and even some power-greedy churchmen - such as the Borgias.
Firstly, couldn't God have worked through all peoples, and not just the Jews. Is God limited? Did It not 'suspect' but actually knew what was going to happen?
If plan 'B' is so good why didn't It introduce it from day one? And what made 2000 years ago so right for the implementation of plan 'B'? (my point here is that the reason all this Christianity came about was because of what was going on in Israel politically and with the Roman occupation, and the Maccabean revolt some 150 years earlier - feelings were running high, and the desire for salvation from all this was at fever pitch)
I would add that it was around 1000 years from the start of the Jews (Exodus etc.) to JC, and yet it is now 2000 years from JC and that plan 'B' has passed its use by date.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
I would argue that it always was just meant to be a precursor to a newer and better covenant.
Go on then, I'm listening.
That it was always part of God's plan, so the speak, that the old covenant was only for a certain people for a certain time, that is until the Christ should come and inaugurate a new covenant. In otherwords, God intended the old covenant to only be a preparation for the new.
So God is so limited that It needs a run up to Its plan. It creates the universe etc. in 7 days but then needs 1000s of years to put right Its initial cockup with mankind?
-
Since Jesus always referred to "our Father," I for one will stick to that. Not that it is of any great matter.
Since the (overwhelmingly male) editors of the works that became the New Testament rendered a term that the patriarchic society that poetically translated the works chose to render as 'our Father' you can choose to think that Jesus said 'our Father', but not really anything more.
As ever, it's not a demonstrable fact or even reasonably solid deduction, it's an assertion.
In which case that applies to almost any piece of history.
To a degree, yes - that's why historians depend on corroboration between sources to enhance the reliability of claims. There is virtually nothing that backs up the majority of the claims of either the Old or New Testaments.
O.
-
Hope.
The new covenant was never hijacked by Constantine. That's just rubbish.
Sorry, ad_o, but history tells us that Constantine and his family - and hence the Romans - adopted Christianity as a way of overcoming the problems that had begun to develop as an increasing number of higher-level citizens of Rome and the Empire took it on board. As you will agrre, in th early days (the first couple of hundred years), the church was predominantly made up of the poor, the enslaved and the dienfranchised with a smattering of more educated people. Remember too, that a couple of Constantine's familial successors sought to roll back the acceptance of Christianity, to the extent that itwasn't fully accepted by Rome for several decades after Constantine's death.
You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward. It was part of God's plan that the Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian. For that we can thank Ss. Constantine, Helena and Theodosius.
-
I agree with Hope - and I haven't read Gibbon.
Constantine was a political animal - he wanted armies, and Christians were ripe for the legions.
After his supposed vision at Milvian Bridge, he kept his options open - actualy sponsoring building work to the "unconconquered sun" and Mithras, whilst cosying up to the Christians.
Not exactly faith in one God, was it?
The Empire would have become Christian in a few decades, with or without Constantine's help - numbers of believers were growing exponentially.
What Constantine DID do was impose an Imperial style beaurocracy, with it's endless red tape, rank, privilage and opportunity for corruption, on the church.
Constantine was a genious - a military strategist par excellence, a political animal to boot.
Religion wise, he kept his cards close to his chest - only 'converting' when he was about to snuff it.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, innit. But for my part I do believe the visions him a d his mother received were genuine and that they have both received their reward in heaven.
If those visions he recieved were genuine, why did he continue to build and endorse temples to both Mithras and the Unconquered sun?
If He was convinced that Chriist was who He claims to be, why did Constantine endorse constructions to gods he wasn't supposed to believe in anymore?
And don't even think of starting on Helena and her litter picking in Palestine with not a shred of archaeology to back up her 'relic fest'.
-
But you're a Protestant. Nuff said! Why did it take Jonah so long to do as God said if what was said to him really came from God?
-
Hope.
The new covenant was never hijacked by Constantine. That's just rubbish.
Sorry, ad_o, but history tells us that Constantine and his family - and hence the Romans - adopted Christianity as a way of overcoming the problems that had begun to develop as an increasing number of higher-level citizens of Rome and the Empire took it on board. As you will agrre, in th early days (the first couple of hundred years), the church was predominantly made up of the poor, the enslaved and the dienfranchised with a smattering of more educated people. Remember too, that a couple of Constantine's familial successors sought to roll back the acceptance of Christianity, to the extent that itwasn't fully accepted by Rome for several decades after Constantine's death.
This brings me to another issue of what is true Christianity? If it has been tainted by such usurping people, who must have coloured things as these events gradually get ingrained over many, many generation, and present Christians have no way of engaging vis-à-vis with the early lot then on what basis do Christians today think they have the real thing. Wouldn't Paul view them as heretic if he could see them today?
-
But you're a Protestant. Nuff said! Why did it take Jonah so long to do as God said if what was said to him really came from God?
-
No.
I'm a Christian - I consider the word 'protestant' confined to history, and Northern Ireland.
I'm also a historian, ad_o; and we need to take into account the documented evidence as well as what the church claims is history.
-
The proper word is Protestant. Let's call things by their proper name. You can't trust secular historians' opinions about matters of faith.
-
Things don't have proper names in the sense of some Platonic naming ideal.
-
The proper word is Protestant. Let's call things by their proper name. You can't trust secular historians' opinions about matters of faith.
Why not? Surely you can trust them more than you can trust religious scholars who have, by definition, a vested interest and a partial viewpoint?
O.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but there are at least four major divine covenants* in the OT (the one with Noah, the one with Abraham, the one with Moses, the one with David - and yet another mentioned in Jeremiah 31.
So that's quite a lot of 'false starts'.
*Perhaps it's high time to begin referring to the Old Testaments (or Covenants). Or use the Hebrew term Tanakh. Then there's the argument that the historical Jesus didn't actually start anything new.....
-
But you're a Protestant. Nuff said! Why did it take Jonah so long to do as God said if what was said to him really came from God?
Because it is a story and has a moral to express.
-
But you're a Protestant. Nuff said! Why did it take Jonah so long to do as God said if what was said to him really came from God?
Because it is a story and has a moral to express.
And if you look beyond the absurd literal descriptions, that moral is quite interesting. Jonah is rather a forward-looking book in the OT, written by a Jew who was looking beyond mere tribal gods and identities, believing that his Yahweh had a message for non-Jews as well.
P.S. I note that Hope thinks that this 'universalism' was there in God's plan from the first. I depends where you read in the OT - there are certainly suggestions of this here and there, mixed up with extremely xenophobic Jewishness and the absurd Levitical system - as well as a decidedly hot-headed old Nobodaddy of a tribal Yahweh much of the time.
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but there are at least four major divine covenants* in the OT (the one with Noah, the one with Abraham, the one with Moses, the one with David - and yet another mentioned in Jeremiah 31.
So that's quite a lot of 'false starts'.
*Perhaps it's high time to begin referring to the Old Testaments (or Covenants). Or use the Hebrew term Tanakh. Then there's the argument that the historical Jesus didn't actually start anything new.....
Pondering this over lunch I think the Jewish covenant was the second covenant (I'm seeing covenant here as the means to correct God's mistake). The first was the crude flood experiment. I don't know about the others you mention were they trying to redeem the world?
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but there are at least four major divine covenants* in the OT (the one with Noah, the one with Abraham, the one with Moses, the one with David - and yet another mentioned in Jeremiah 31.
So that's quite a lot of 'false starts'.
*Perhaps it's high time to begin referring to the Old Testaments (or Covenants). Or use the Hebrew term Tanakh. Then there's the argument that the historical Jesus didn't actually start anything new.....
Pondering this over lunch I think the Jewish covenant was the second covenant (I'm seeing covenant here as the means to correct God's mistake). The first was the crude flood experiment. I don't know about the others you mention were they trying to redeem the world?
The Davidic one was simply to establish an everlasting dynasty of Jewish kings, as far as I can see. The Abrahamic one was more 'universalist' (the idea that through Abraham's seed all the peoples of the earth should be blest - which St Paul deliberately twisted by saying that 'seed' was singular, and therefore referred to Christ). Moses' covenant seems to be largely tribal. The Jeremiah passage I've only just heard of, so I can't say much about that.
P.S. Having just read Jeremiah 31, it seems largely tribal, predicting a rosy future for "The chief of nations". Seems to look forward to a time when the people of the huge Jewish diaspora will return to Israel and 'regroup'. No doubt lots of metaphorical stuff here.
-
But you're a Protestant. Nuff said! Why did it take Jonah so long to do as God said if what was said to him really came from God?
Because it is a story and has a moral to express.
And if you look beyond the absurd literal descriptions, that moral is quite interesting. Jonah is rather a forward-looking book in the OT, written by a Jew who was looking beyond mere tribal gods and identities, believing that his Yahweh had a message for non-Jews as well.
P.S. I note that Hope thinks that this 'universalism' was there in God's plan from the first. I depends where you read in the OT - there are certainly suggestions of this here and there, mixed up with extremely xenophobic Jewishness and the absurd Levitical system - as well as a decidedly hot-headed old Nobodaddy of a tribal Yahweh much of the time.
I think Job is also forward-looking.
I do wonder where the various nations came from if they are all suppose to stem from Noah? Why didn't God just start dealing with all peoples from after the flood (i.e. Noah and family, than waiting when they had formed different nations and then choosing one as Its chosen ones.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
I do wonder where the various nations came from if they are all suppose to stem from Noah? Why didn't God just start dealing with all peoples from after the flood (i.e. Noah and family, than waiting when they had formed different nations and then choosing one as Its chosen ones.
God had to wait till certain characteristics had begun to assert themselves (these are sometimes rather less than honourable, so one wonders quite what criteria he had in mind). But didn't all notable ancient civilisations think they were somehow especially blessed by their gods?
-
Although didn't some civilizations also think that they were cursed by their gods? I suppose some of them had a mixture of bad gods and good gods, so you could explain the changes in life.
But I sometimes wonder if the Abrahamics have kind of included a similar sort of dualism, but they have stressed that we deserve the wrath of God. So you can have God in full-on smiting mode, but that's OK, because you've been disobedient.
A while ago I read an 18th century diary of a clergyman, and it was amazing to see him twisting and turning to justify the various ways of God. Since he believed in providence, he tried to justify many things - for example, his daughter died, and he saw it as a kind of admonishment.
I suppose this has died out largely, but not entirely. Especially in the US, you still get the 'hurricanes will increase because of gay marriage, and God is very angry' and so on. Even more common is the view that God reduces you a bit, as you were becoming too prideful. It does verge on masochism.
It also seems ad hoc, and a kind of retcon. I mean, you didn't realize you were being prideful, but your comeuppance has made you look back, and realize you were. Hoody, doody.
-
The proper word is Protestant. Let's call things by their proper name. You can't trust secular historians' opinions about matters of faith.
-
No.
The proper word is "Christian" - as in someone who follows Christ.
If you want to be pedantic, and play around with words, then "Reformed Christian" is acceptable; as in
'A Christian who is a member of a Reformed Church.'.
Protestantism is a phenomena associated with 16th-18th century reformed Christians, but that movement is over.
The motto "Semper reformanda" - always reforming - is still aplicable to Reformed Churches.
-
Oh by the way Len, American or not I think there must have been some very heavy indoctrination applied there to an in the first place a particularly credulous subject, when or where?
ippy
I'm sorry mate, but I can't make sense of that question. Can you rephrase it for an old guy, and I'll answer it? :(
The poor bloke is really gone, a no hoper, no cure, I really think it's so sad when they are so far gone as this one obviously is.
Sorry about that Len I just posing the question of when or where this man received such a heavy dose of indoctrination, I wasn't expecting an answer.
ippy
-
I've a London accent myself, incidentally have you ever noticed that London is the only place in the UK that doesn't really have a local accent
Eh? I was born in the East End of London and lived in London for 25 years and I'm pretty sure that there is a London accent, unless I've been mistaken all these years.
The point I was making was that it's the others that have accents not us Londoners.
I didn't think there was a need to be totally without any kind of humour when addressing this forum.
ippy
-
The point I was making was that it's the others that have accents not us Londoners.
I didn't think there was a need to be totally without any kind of humour when addressing this forum.
Part of the problem, ippy, is that when you try to do so, you do so so poorly.
-
Oh by the way Len, American or not I think there must have been some very heavy indoctrination applied there to an in the first place a particularly credulous subject, when or where?
ippy
I'm sorry mate, but I can't make sense of that question. Can you rephrase it for an old guy, and I'll answer it? :(
The poor bloke is really gone, a no hoper, no cure, I really think it's so sad when they are so far gone as this one obviously is.
Sorry about that Len I just posing the question of when or where this man received such a heavy dose of indoctrination, I wasn't expecting an answer.
ippy
Oh, OK man! I didn't realise that. :)
-
You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward. It was part of God's plan that the Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian. For that we can thank Ss. Constantine, Helena and Theodosius.
Sorry to disappoint you, ad_o, but like Jim, I've never read any of Gibbon's work. Whether or not God's plan was that the "Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian" doesn't nullify the historical facts that I outlined in the post you refer to.
-
You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward. It was part of God's plan that the Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian. For that we can thank Ss. Constantine, Helena and Theodosius.
Sorry to disappoint you, ad_o, but like Jim, I've never read any of Gibbon's work. Whether or not God's plan was that the "Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian" doesn't nullify the historical facts that I outlined in the post you refer to.
No they are not facts. They're the opinions of cynics and atheists.
-
Just nipped quickly through this to see if I'd already asked about God's so-called incompetence re humanity. I hadn't so.....
Can anyone here please explain WHY God supposedly sent the Great Flood in the Story Of Noah??? ;) ::)
Nick
-
The point I was making was that it's the others that have accents not us Londoners.
I didn't think there was a need to be totally without any kind of humour when addressing this forum.
Part of the problem, ippy, is that when you try to do so, you do so so poorly.
Still raining up there Hope?
ippy
-
You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward. It was part of God's plan that the Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian. For that we can thank Ss. Constantine, Helena and Theodosius.
Sorry to disappoint you, ad_o, but like Jim, I've never read any of Gibbon's work. Whether or not God's plan was that the "Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian" doesn't nullify the historical facts that I outlined in the post you refer to.
No they are not facts. They're the opinions of cynics and atheists.
-
Just because many qualified historians have reassessed Constantine in the light of both documentary and archaeological evidence makes them neither cynic nor atheist.
-
I've a London accent myself, incidentally have you ever noticed that London is the only place in the UK that doesn't really have a local accent
Eh? I was born in the East End of London and lived in London for 25 years and I'm pretty sure that there is a London accent, unless I've been mistaken all these years.
The point I was making was that it's the others that have accents not us Londoners.
I didn't think there was a need to be totally without any kind of humour when addressing this forum.
ippy
I understand humour as well as most, especially sarcasm, but it didn't come across as a joke.
-
You've been reading too much Edward Gibbon. Constantine converted because he had a vision from Christ and both him and his mother, who found the True Cross, have received their reward. It was part of God's plan that the Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian. For that we can thank Ss. Constantine, Helena and Theodosius.
Sorry to disappoint you, ad_o, but like Jim, I've never read any of Gibbon's work. Whether or not God's plan was that the "Empire that at first persecuted the Christians should itself eventually become Christian" doesn't nullify the historical facts that I outlined in the post you refer to.
No they are not facts. They're the opinions of cynics and atheists.
-
Just because many qualified historians have reassessed Constantine in the light of both documentary and archaeological evidence makes them neither cynic nor atheist.
No, what they do is reject faith and therefore they (Ss. Constantine and Helena) assume that neither actually saw their respective visions nor that the cross that was found was the True Cross. However, the faith of the Church testifies that they did and that it was.
-
The faith of the church has proven somewhat at odds with Christ many times.
Leaving the hagiography out of the equation, If Constantine was so wedded to Christianity, why did he have coins minted showing Sol Invicta the year AFTER his 'conversion'?
Whuy were temples dedicated to both Sol Invicta and Mithras - in Constantantine's name - founded as late as318AD?
This so-called saint was committing blasphemey - and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit at that - if he was genuinely Christian.
He hedged his bets - just like many in the Free Church of Scotland - he got baptised just before he snuffed it in the hope that sprinkled water brings salvation - which it does not.
He was a consumate politican, diplomat, warrior - and egocentric megalomaniac, like many previous Emperors.
That doesn't mean God didn't use him.
Niether does it mean we need to swallow the hagiography as if it was gospel.
-
Just nipped quickly through this to see if I'd already asked about God's so-called incompetence re humanity. I hadn't so.....
Can anyone here please explain WHY God supposedly sent the Great Flood in the Story Of Noah??? ;) ::)
Nick
Easy! The story isn't true!
-
The faith of the church has proven somewhat at odds with Christ many times.
Leaving the hagiography out of the equation, If Constantine was so wedded to Christianity, why did he have coins minted showing Sol Invicta the year AFTER his 'conversion'?
Whuy were temples dedicated to both Sol Invicta and Mithras - in Constantantine's name - founded as late as318AD?
This so-called saint was committing blasphemey - and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit at that - if he was genuinely Christian.
He hedged his bets - just like many in the Free Church of Scotland - he got baptised just before he snuffed it in the hope that sprinkled water brings salvation - which it does not.
He was a consumate politican, diplomat, warrior - and egocentric megalomaniac, like many previous Emperors.
That doesn't mean God didn't use him.
Niether does it mean we need to swallow the hagiography as if it was gospel.
The faith of the Church is never at odds with Christ. I gave the example of Jonah, or are to going to argue that God never actually spoke to Jonah because he didn't act as he should have straightaway? Sometimes it takes a while to work things out or to act as we should, just as in Jonah's and Constantine's case, but it does not make the vision or conversion less true.
-
If you want to be pedantic, and play around with words, then "Reformed Christian" is acceptable; as in
'A Christian who is a member of a Reformed Church.'.
Protestantism is a phenomena associated with 16th-18th century reformed Christians, but that movement is over.
That is merely an arbitrary distinction you yourself have made.
The motto "Semper reformanda" - always reforming - is still aplicable to Reformed Churches.
Yeah, ever going into deeper and deeper error.
-
Just nipped quickly through this to see if I'd already asked about God's so-called incompetence re humanity. I hadn't so.....
Can anyone here please explain WHY God supposedly sent the Great Flood in the Story Of Noah??? ;) ::)
Nick
Easy! The story isn't true!
OK So there are some bits in the Bible YOU feel are not true?
Is this one 'false' because it conflicts with what YOU believe or feel God is/was ?
-
Just nipped quickly through this to see if I'd already asked about God's so-called incompetence re humanity. I hadn't so.....
Can anyone here please explain WHY God supposedly sent the Great Flood in the Story Of Noah??? ;) ::)
Nick
Easy! The story isn't true!
OK So there are some bits in the Bible YOU feel are not true?
Is this one 'false' because it conflicts with what YOU believe or feel God is/was ?
It's because he's a Marcionite.
-
AAHH DO please explain,!!!
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
-
The faith of the church has proven somewhat at odds with Christ many times.
Leaving the hagiography out of the equation, If Constantine was so wedded to Christianity, why did he have coins minted showing Sol Invicta the year AFTER his 'conversion'?
Whuy were temples dedicated to both Sol Invicta and Mithras - in Constantantine's name - founded as late as318AD?
This so-called saint was committing blasphemey - and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit at that - if he was genuinely Christian.
He hedged his bets - just like many in the Free Church of Scotland - he got baptised just before he snuffed it in the hope that sprinkled water brings salvation - which it does not.
He was a consumate politican, diplomat, warrior - and egocentric megalomaniac, like many previous Emperors.
That doesn't mean God didn't use him.
Niether does it mean we need to swallow the hagiography as if it was gospel.
The faith of the Church is never at odds with Christ. I gave the example of Jonah, or are to going to argue that God never actually spoke to Jonah because he didn't act as he should have straightaway? Sometimes it takes a while to work things out or to act as we should, just as in Jonah's and Constantine's case, but it does not make the vision or conversion less true.
-
Well. if his mibs' 'conversion' was so genuine. why could he contenance the minting of coinage with his face - and a PAGAN deity? Why would this monotheistic superhero even THINK oftemples to gods he supposedly didn't believre in being dedicated in his name?
If he WAS Christian, he was a hypocritical Christian.
-
If you want to be pedantic, and play around with words, then "Reformed Christian" is acceptable; as in
'A Christian who is a member of a Reformed Church.'.
Protestantism is a phenomena associated with 16th-18th century reformed Christians, but that movement is over.
That is merely an arbitrary distinction you yourself have made.
The motto "Semper reformanda" - always reforming - is still aplicable to Reformed Churches.
Yeah, ever going into deeper and deeper error.
Not according to the Bible, it ain't.
The church, bells, smells, dog collars and tradition though it is, is NOT the Bible.
-
If you want to be pedantic, and play around with words, then "Reformed Christian" is acceptable; as in
'A Christian who is a member of a Reformed Church.'.
Protestantism is a phenomena associated with 16th-18th century reformed Christians, but that movement is over.
That is merely an arbitrary distinction you yourself have made.
The motto "Semper reformanda" - always reforming - is still aplicable to Reformed Churches.
Yeah, ever going into deeper and deeper error.
Not according to the Bible, it ain't.
The church, bells, smells, dog collars and tradition though it is, is NOT the Bible.
But scripture alone is guff and nowhere to be found in scripture. It divorces the scriptures from the life of the Church.
-
But scripture alone is guff and nowhere to be found in scripture. It divorces the scriptures from the life of the Church.
ad_o, whilst the Jews had lots of tradition (as illustrated in the Old Testament), by the time the New Testament documents were written, there was very little 'Christian' tradition. Apart from the Lord's Supper/Eucharist and (possibly) Baptism there was very little 'traditional' behaviour.
-
But scripture alone is guff and nowhere to be found in scripture. It divorces the scriptures from the life of the Church.
ad_o, whilst the Jews had lots of tradition (as illustrated in the Old Testament), by the time the New Testament documents were written, there was very little 'Christian' tradition. Apart from the Lord's Supper/Eucharist and (possibly) Baptism there was very little 'traditional' behaviour.
You don't know what tradition, from a Christian perspective, is.
-
Hope is actually correct.
What we DO know of second century Christianity suggests that, although they shared a core doctrine, practice, procedure, language and leadership structure varied widley within congregations or groups of churches.
Only when Constantine transferred the structure of an Imperial-style beaurocracy, with all its' opportunities for vice, corruption and self-promotion, on the Church, did those separate structures end (sometimes at the point of an Imperial sword)
-
Just nipped quickly through this to see if I'd already asked about God's so-called incompetence re humanity. I hadn't so.....
Can anyone here please explain WHY God supposedly sent the Great Flood in the Story Of Noah??? ;) ::)
Nick
Can you please explain what relevance you think the answer to the question above has to the 'thread question'. Ta
-
Just nipped quickly through this to see if I'd already asked about God's so-called incompetence re humanity. I hadn't so.....
Can anyone here please explain WHY God supposedly sent the Great Flood in the Story Of Noah??? ;) ::)
Nick
Easy! The story isn't true!
What part of the story of Noah and the flood isn't true?
I ask because Christ tells us differently.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
If, the story of Noah isn't true then Christ cannot be a decendant of ABRAHAM and what is more, Abraham could not have existed... Neither could David or Christ be related.
http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html
No Noah then no Abraham, Isaac, David or Christ....
Bash you need to re-think what you state... God is not a liar and Christ certainly confirmed Noah existed and the flood took place.
-
The flood story is not credible. Just because Jesus and other Jews believed it to have credence doesn't mean it had.
-
If, the story of Noah isn't true then Christ cannot be a decendant of ABRAHAM and what is more, Abraham could not have existed... Neither could David or Christ be related.
Trying to make a coherent, sensible story of dozens of books written by different authors at different periods is an impossible task, with or without the "Holy Spirit". :)
That is why you Christians squabble about it so much, and break into different factions.
-
The flood story is not credible. Just because Jesus and other Jews believed it to have credence doesn't mean it had.
Credible:
Show us what is credible about us, that is us, - being a planet with life in what appears a vast lifeless void existing..
Now show what credibility has to do with either?
-
The flood story is not credible. Just because Jesus and other Jews believed it to have credence doesn't mean it had.
Credible:
Show us being a planet with life in what appears a vast lifeless void existing..
What is credible about that?
What is credible about that is that it exists.
-
If, the story of Noah isn't true then Christ cannot be a decendant of ABRAHAM and what is more, Abraham could not have existed... Neither could David or Christ be related.
Trying to make a coherent, sensible story of dozens of books written by different authors at different periods is an impossible task, with or without the "Holy Spirit". :)
That is why you Christians squabble about it so much, and break into different factions.
To make sense of the bible you have to know and focus on the writer.
The person who inspired all those Prophets to write the truth.
Christians don't squabble who are all of one mind and one Spirit.
They know every word of God is true because the person writing/inspiring it's writers is not a liar.
The bible is about coming to know God and a living relationship with him.
Those who seek God need to understand that God is not a liar and every word he gives us in the OT is true.
-
The flood story is not credible. Just because Jesus and other Jews believed it to have credence doesn't mean it had.
Credible:
Show us being a planet with life in what appears a vast lifeless void existing..
What is credible about that?
What is credible about that is that it exists.
How to all intents and purpose is that possible?
There is no credible reason for us to exist...
-
How to all intents and purpose is that possible?
There is no credible reason for us to exist...
Physics, chemistry and biology.
-
To make sense of the bible you have to know and focus on the writer.
The person who inspired all those Prophets to write the truth.
Christians don't squabble who are all of one mind and one Spirit.
They know every word of God is true because the person writing/inspiring it's writers is not a liar.
So all the Christians who disagree with your interpretation are not really Christians. Is that what you are saying?
The bible is about coming to know God and a living relationship with him.
Those who seek God need to understand that God is not a liar and every word he gives us in the OT is true.
You are delusional.
-
To make sense of the bible you have to know and focus on the writer.
The person who inspired all those Prophets to write the truth.
Christians don't squabble who are all of one mind and one Spirit.
They know every word of God is true because the person writing/inspiring it's writers is not a liar.
So all the Christians who disagree with your interpretation are not really Christians. Is that what you are saying?
The bible is about coming to know God and a living relationship with him.
Those who seek God need to understand that God is not a liar and every word he gives us in the OT is true.
You are delusional.
-
So all the Christians who disagree with your interpretation are not really Christians. Is that what you are saying?
That's always been the way it goes with the religios, Len. Monotheists especially.
-
So all the Christians who disagree with your interpretation are not really Christians. Is that what you are saying?
That's always been the way it goes with the religios, Len. Monotheists especially.
One bright sign is that the new generation seem to be escaping from this hideous indoctrination
-
One bright sign is that the new generation seem to be escaping from this hideous indoctrination
It never pays to be complacent - you can't let down your guard - but yes, it's heartening to see how youngsters are abandoning religion even and especially in a formerly highly religious nation such as the USA - "Generation None" as they're sometimes called (from the answer they give when polled about what religious affiliation or adherence they have, if any).
-
How to all intents and purpose is that possible?
There is no credible reason for us to exist...
Physics, chemistry and biology.
So Chemistry, biology and Physics all existed before the earth and the elements did? Seems they are rather incompetent if they existed before creation and only managed one planet with life in that vast void... That is right the three DO NOT explain why we exist.. do they? They are the findings of the created the Humans which have created them for their own need. Outside human understanding they don't exist and did not exist till after humans created.. Oh dear! anything else after that epic failure?
-
One bright sign is that the new generation seem to be escaping from this hideous indoctrination
It never pays to be complacent - you can't let down your guard - but yes, it's heartening to see how youngsters are abandoning religion even and especially in a formerly highly religious nation such as the USA - "Generation None" as they're sometimes called (from the answer they give when polled about what religious affiliation or adherence they have, if any).
It's the same here in Spain. Very few youngsters go to church any more, or acknowledge the "God" of the Bible. The change in the last 25 years is astonishing.
-
So Chemistry, biology and Physics all existed before the earth and the elements did?
Physics, being the most fundamental of the sciences, did, yes, that's absolutely correct.
Seems they are rather incompetent if they existed before creation and only managed one planet with life in that vast void...
Who says that this is the case?
That is right the three DO NOT explain why we exist.. do they?
Yes. Learn some science.
They are the findings of the created the Humans which have created them for their own need.
What?
Outside human understanding they don't exist and did not exist till after humans created..
Physics, chemistry and biology create humans, not vice versa.
-
To make sense of the bible you have to know and focus on the writer.
The person who inspired all those Prophets to write the truth.
Christians don't squabble who are all of one mind and one Spirit.
They know every word of God is true because the person writing/inspiring it's writers is not a liar.
So all the Christians who disagree with your interpretation are not really Christians. Is that what you are saying?
The truth is you don't have the ability to know or understand who is telling the truth. We were discussing the understanding of the bible. So is the above wrong?
Is it wrong to believe the bible the word of God is true because God is NOT a liar?
Or are you just saying the same old thing because I am right you do not have the ability to know if I am telling the truth. You a self confessed one time Christian who said he believed? I never said at any stage that I was comparing myself to other believers or their interpretation of the bible. I stated the one truth which the bible would teach any reader...
King James Bible
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
The bible shows God is not a man, that he should lie.
If you do not have an answer for that which is set before you then don't intentionally imply something against me which had not been said or implied anywhere in the actual post.
The bible is about coming to know God and a living relationship with him.
Those who seek God need to understand that God is not a liar and every word he gives us in the OT is true.
You are delusional.
Ahhh but you cannot prove that! Nothing in my post is delusional because God has said about himself that he is NOT a liar. So maybe you see from this post by the things you say we can see you attack that which you have no answer for and do not understand.
-
Ahhh but you cannot prove that! Nothing in my post is delusional because God has said about himself that he is NOT a liar. So maybe you see from this post by the things you say we can see you attack that which you have no answer for and do not understand.
Thank you for proving my point, Sass! The delusion that "God" really exists has addled you mind completely.
Now confirm the fact by telling us that sometimes he talks to you. ;D ;D ;D
-
I've a London accent myself, incidentally have you ever noticed that London is the only place in the UK that doesn't really have a local accent
Eh? I was born in the East End of London and lived in London for 25 years and I'm pretty sure that there is a London accent, unless I've been mistaken all these years.
The point I was making was that it's the others that have accents not us Londoners.
I didn't think there was a need to be totally without any kind of humour when addressing this forum.
ippy
I understand humour as well as most, especially sarcasm, but it didn't come across as a joke.
It wasn't meant to be a joke just a small amount of mild humour, but there, you understand humour, so you inform me.
I'm not your enemy, it's your religious ideas that I don't agree with or can see why they are deserving of any special respect.
ippy
-
Although didn't some civilizations also think that they were cursed by their gods? I suppose some of them had a mixture of bad gods and good gods, so you could explain the changes in life.
But I sometimes wonder if the Abrahamics have kind of included a similar sort of dualism, but they have stressed that we deserve the wrath of God. So you can have God in full-on smiting mode, but that's OK, because you've been disobedient.
wiggi
Yes, I think that's fairly clear from the early books of the Bible - though 'being disobedient' seemed principally 'not giving supreme devotion to Yahweh' - modified to 'not giving exclusive devotion to Yahweh' when the ancient Hebrews became less henotheistic.
It's interesting how the Book of Job (which Jack mentioned) tries to grapple with this problem of a good bloke who does everything right according to the rules, but still finds himself in the shit. I believe the origins of this story are quite ancient and come from non-Jewish sources, so I wonder just when it was thought to epitomise the problem of 'where does unjustified suffering come from?' Probably post-Babylonian exile?
A while ago I read an 18th century diary of a clergyman, and it was amazing to see him twisting and turning to justify the various ways of God. Since he believed in providence, he tried to justify many things - for example, his daughter died, and he saw it as a kind of admonishment.
I believe the death of his daughter was a turning-point for Darwin, who was not prepared to stomach any more the kind of double-think that (fundamentalist) Christians are still prepared to indulge in to preserve the moral integrity of their presumed creator. Mind you, Darwin had been well prepared by his exhaustive studies of nature's sublimely arbitrary indifference to such theological tangles.
I suppose this has died out largely, but not entirely. Especially in the US, you still get the 'hurricanes will increase because of gay marriage, and God is very angry' and so on. Even more common is the view that God reduces you a bit, as you were becoming too prideful. It does verge on masochism.
It also seems ad hoc, and a kind of retcon. I mean, you didn't realize you were being prideful, but your comeuppance has made you look back, and realize you were. Hoody, doody.
I think the tendency of such groups is to single out 'those degenerates not like us' as the first cause for divine anger, rather than taking a look at themselves. Not that either attitude has the slightest significance regarding the behaviour of the natural world (except in the extent to which the 'saved' may be polluting the environment - but in that case, what the hell - Armageddon's just round the corner)
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but there are at least four major divine covenants* in the OT (the one with Noah, the one with Abraham, the one with Moses, the one with David - and yet another mentioned in Jeremiah 31.
So that's quite a lot of 'false starts'.
*Perhaps it's high time to begin referring to the Old Testaments (or Covenants). Or use the Hebrew term Tanakh. Then there's the argument that the historical Jesus didn't actually start anything new.....
Pondering this over lunch I think the Jewish covenant was the second covenant (I'm seeing covenant here as the means to correct God's mistake). The first was the crude flood experiment. I don't know about the others you mention were they trying to redeem the world?
Further to my mentioning the Davidic covenant, it's interesting to note how the notion of an everlasting dynasty of Kings is perpetuated in the OT, even after it's quite obvious that invading nations have laid all Israel's hopes to waste, and even Solomon's temple has been reduced to ruins. The dating of the writings in question is still open to debate, but it appears that a later redactor, or redactors, were prepared to gloss over such matters, and move the emphasis back to the Covenant at Sinai (or Horeb - depending where you read).
That's the problem with all these ancient texts - it really does depend on where you read, because there is such a wide diversity of accounts which never say quite the same thing (and sometimes very contradictory things). These matters are not helped in objective discussion by those of inflexible religious persuasion trying to tell us that there is one unique message throughout, first misunderstood by the Jews, and then requiring its ultimate reinforcement by the Incarnation of Jesus. What a load of bollocks.
-
There's a flood thread on the faith sharing board, folks.
Any chance of continuing deluge debate there?
-
Hope is actually correct.
What we DO know of second century Christianity suggests that, although they shared a core doctrine, practice, procedure, language and leadership structure varied widley within congregations or groups of churches.
Only when Constantine transferred the structure of an Imperial-style beaurocracy, with all its' opportunities for vice, corruption and self-promotion, on the Church, did those separate structures end (sometimes at the point of an Imperial sword)
You know nothing of the early Church. All you need to do is read the Ante-Nicene Fathers to see how Orthodox they are, especially concerning the role of the Church and that we are to keep that which has been handed down to us.
-
Hope is actually correct.
What we DO know of second century Christianity suggests that, although they shared a core doctrine, practice, procedure, language and leadership structure varied widley within congregations or groups of churches.
Only when Constantine transferred the structure of an Imperial-style beaurocracy, with all its' opportunities for vice, corruption and self-promotion, on the Church, did those separate structures end (sometimes at the point of an Imperial sword)
You know nothing of the early Church. All you need to do is read the Ante-Nicene Fathers to see how Orthodox they are, especially concerning the role of the Church and that we are to keep that which has been handed down to us.
-
Er.....
hang on:
The Church existwed before the Nicene council, and definately before Constantine stuck his oar in.
Actuallty, I know quite a bit about the pre-Constantine Church, both in Syria/Turkey (as it is today) and Egypt.
-
I accidentally missed out the word "bishop", so it should have read "the role of the bishop in the Church".
-
There's a flood thread on the faith sharing board, folks.
Any chance of continuing deluge debate there?
Any chance of you Christian chaps continuing with something related to the subject of this thread as well? Perhaps you'd like to give your take on the Covenant delivered to David through God's prophet Nathan at 2Samuel:7. Especially the following quote:
"16] And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.'" "
Well, God seems to be telling David that there will be an everlasting line of Jewish kings, issuing "from the loins" of David. Well, we know this prophecy didn't last long, since certain rather nasty periods of defeat and exile for the Jews followed.
However, I suppose you're going to say it was really all about Jesus :)
-
The thread concerns the New Covenant instituted by Christ through His atonment.
-
The thread concerns the New Covenant instituted by Christ through His atonment.
I didn't think you were one of those who wished to detach the NT from the vagaries of the old. I'm not sure quite how much you trust the words of the Bible (I get the impression that you're far too intelligent to be of the biblical inerrancy brigade). However, when you get prophecies and supposedly absolute pronouncements from the deity which seem to have gone hugely astray, it does call into question such things of the divine omniscience of the Judaeo-christian God.
Okay - I suppose you're going to claim that it was all humanity's fault, and especially the Jews', who just failed to live up the standards expected of them. So God has second thoughts and devises this baffling scheme of the vicarious atonement. Well, that's how the story goes, largely according to Paul. But not according to some of the recorded sayings of Jesus. Leaving the floor open to cafeteria christians*, btw :)
*"Cafeteria christians" - I first heard this term used by a very dogmatic Catholic over on the old BBC board. I interpret it as meaning a Christian who simply picks the bits from the NT that he appeal to him/her, without such things making too many demands on him/her. And, importantly, without much scholarship determining what goes into the accepted selection.
-
The thread concerns the New Covenant instituted by Christ through His atonment.
There are of course precursors for the Atonement idea in the OT - the scapegoat, the Paschal lamb etc, but it does seem odd that the idea achieved such momentous significance in Christianity, set against all the pronouncements of supposed prosperity, if only people would just do according to what God's laws were supposed to be (which of course were changed by the Jewish prophets over time - Isaiah gets them down to three, I think, and Micah just two. Hillel got them down to one, which not even Jesus achieved).
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I do wonder where the various nations came from if they are all suppose to stem from Noah? Why didn't God just start dealing with all peoples from after the flood (i.e. Noah and family, than waiting when they had formed different nations and then choosing one as Its chosen ones.
God had to wait till certain characteristics had begun to assert themselves (these are sometimes rather less than honourable, so one wonders quite what criteria he had in mind). But didn't all notable ancient civilisations think they were somehow especially blessed by their gods?
But if they all came from Noah, who was deemed good by God, then all his offspring should also be good. The question that follows from this is where did the evil natures come from after Noah?
-
Why?
How did God fail to get it right the first time? I mean It is suppose to be the all knowing, super-duper all powerful God.
And going on from this incompetence what makes you think It got it right the last time, 2000 years ago, as they claim?
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but there are at least four major divine covenants* in the OT (the one with Noah, the one with Abraham, the one with Moses, the one with David - and yet another mentioned in Jeremiah 31.
So that's quite a lot of 'false starts'.
*Perhaps it's high time to begin referring to the Old Testaments (or Covenants). Or use the Hebrew term Tanakh. Then there's the argument that the historical Jesus didn't actually start anything new.....
Pondering this over lunch I think the Jewish covenant was the second covenant (I'm seeing covenant here as the means to correct God's mistake). The first was the crude flood experiment. I don't know about the others you mention were they trying to redeem the world?
Further to my mentioning the Davidic covenant, it's interesting to note how the notion of an everlasting dynasty of Kings is perpetuated in the OT, even after it's quite obvious that invading nations have laid all Israel's hopes to waste, and even Solomon's temple has been reduced to ruins. The dating of the writings in question is still open to debate, but it appears that a later redactor, or redactors, were prepared to gloss over such matters, and move the emphasis back to the Covenant at Sinai (or Horeb - depending where you read).
That's the problem with all these ancient texts - it really does depend on where you read, because there is such a wide diversity of accounts which never say quite the same thing (and sometimes very contradictory things). These matters are not helped in objective discussion by those of inflexible religious persuasion trying to tell us that there is one unique message throughout, first misunderstood by the Jews, and then requiring its ultimate reinforcement by the Incarnation of Jesus. What a load of bollocks.
I saw an archaeological programme that claimed that at the time of David his tribe were just a load of poor, insignificant shepherds and that the history that led to its greatness was massaged afterwards, as it always is - the victors writing the history books.
-
The flood story is not credible. Just because Jesus and other Jews believed it to have credence doesn't mean it had.
It was never meant to be credible, Floo. It was actually written in the 5th or 6th century BC, sortly after the return to Palestine of the people from Babylon, and was part of a theological document that sought to expalin how and why the God of Israel was different from the gods that the people had caome into conact with whilst in Babylon.
Its only gullible people like you who think that it, along with the rest of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, its a historical record of anything.
-
The flood story is not credible. Just because Jesus and other Jews believed it to have credence doesn't mean it had.
It was never meant to be credible, Floo.
Good stuff. Then let us sweep it aside as the self-evident tosh that it is and treat it as the exceedingly minor historical curio that it is, which is to say, ignore it just as we do with the ancient myths of societies and cultures whose names, legends, heroes and demons most people can't even pronounce let alone identify.
-
The flood story is not credible. Just because Jesus and other Jews believed it to have credence doesn't mean it had.
It was never meant to be credible, Floo. It was actually written in the 5th or 6th century BC, sortly after the return to Palestine of the people from Babylon, and was part of a theological document that sought to expalin how and why the God of Israel was different from the gods that the people had caome into conact with whilst in Babylon.
Its only gullible people like you who think that it, along with the rest of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, its a historical record of anything.
Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!
-
Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!
He didn't write it. As Hope says, it was most likely written in the 6th/5th century BCE.
-
The flood story is not credible. Just because Jesus and other Jews believed it to have credence doesn't mean it had.
It was never meant to be credible, Floo. It was actually written in the 5th or 6th century BC, sortly after the return to Palestine of the people from Babylon, and was part of a theological document that sought to expalin how and why the God of Israel was different from the gods that the people had caome into conact with whilst in Babylon.
Its only gullible people like you who think that it, along with the rest of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, its a historical record of anything.
Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!
-
Er....Most modern scholars - including the Orthodox lecturer in NT Greek (later a bishop) who taught me theology, would say that the Pentateuch as we have it was very hevily edited in the 6th or 5th century BC, and therefore was a product of several authors/editors.
-
Secondly, can I ask that you use the commonly accepted English pronoun for a sentient being of no specific gender
If God is so great why did she get it wrong first time round and why did she have to issue a second covenant?
Sorry jeremy, 'she' is gender-specific in English, and as such, it is no better than 'it'. Mind you, as the Jews knew, God was both male and female in being, hence of the 144 Jewish names for God 72 are female and 72 are male.
Hi there Hope It must be wonderful to have this sort of really useful knowledge at your finger tips, Im really impressed.
ippy
-
Hi there Hope It must be wonderful to have this sort of really useful knowledge at your finger tips, Im really impressed.
Most linguists have this kind of information to hand, as do many other non-linguists and non-Christians. Pity that you don't seem to have this level of background knowledge about other languages, let alone your own language.
-
Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!
Sadly, ad_o, the material itself shows that Moses couldn't have written it as it includes ideas and concepts that wouldn't have existed in the early- to mid-2nd millennium BC.
A general question - would 1850BC be regarded as early- or late- 2nd millennium by modern scholars? I always get muddled
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
-
Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!
Sadly, ad_o, the material itself shows that Moses couldn't have written it as it includes ideas and concepts that wouldn't have existed in the early- to mid-2nd millennium BC.
Of course you think that.
-
Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!
Sadly, ad_o, the material itself shows that Moses couldn't have written it as it includes ideas and concepts that wouldn't have existed in the early- to mid-2nd millennium BC.
Of course you think that.
_
Not only that, if the Exodus involving Moses HAD been written by him - and left unaided, why did he neglect to mention the major powers in Syria/Palestine, such as Mitanni and Ammuru?
-
I'd say the same to you as I said to Hope.
-
I'd say the same to you as I said to Hope.
-
So, in writing the Pentateuch, Moses created mini states which didn't exist till the eleventh century BC, while at the same time ignoring the 'superpowers' of the region which existed from c1600-1000 BC?
Funny, dat!
Or could it be that those who edited and re-wrote the Pentateuch had access to the Books of Kings, Chronicles, etc, which showed a remarkable grasp of the well documented situation from c1000 BC onward, but ommitted the superpowers of the previous five centuries since they had either lost influence or ceased to exist by then?
-
Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!
Sadly, ad_o, the material itself shows that Moses couldn't have written it as it includes ideas and concepts that wouldn't have existed in the early- to mid-2nd millennium BC.
Of course you think that.
_
Not only that, if the Exodus involving Moses HAD been written by him - and left unaided, why did he neglect to mention the major powers in Syria/Palestine, such as Mitanni and Ammuru?
What date are you using for the Exodus, Jim?
-
Hi there Hope It must be wonderful to have this sort of really useful knowledge at your finger tips, Im really impressed.
Most linguists have this kind of information to hand, as do many other non-linguists and non-Christians. Pity that you don't seem to have this level of background knowledge about other languages, let alone your own language.
Wow the ability to tip a discussion without having to look up anything from a book, impressive.
ippy
-
Yeah right. I'm dead sure that's what Moses thought when he wrote it. Oh yeah! But you don't even believe he wrote it. Gordon Bennett!
Sadly, ad_o, the material itself shows that Moses couldn't have written it as it includes ideas and concepts that wouldn't have existed in the early- to mid-2nd millennium BC.
Of course you think that.
_
Not only that, if the Exodus involving Moses HAD been written by him - and left unaided, why did he neglect to mention the major powers in Syria/Palestine, such as Mitanni and Ammuru?
What date are you using for the Exodus, Jim?
-
Oh, 'eck.....
Don't get me started on THAT, Alan!
There are umpteen dates for the Exodus, from c1700-c1200 BC.
I'd go with the latter end, though, mainly because we have more evidence for a settled Davidic state from c1000 BC onwards, and events recorded in Kings and Chronicles tie in remarkably well with external events.
(And before anyone asks: yes, I do believe in an exodus of Hebrews from Egypt - though not in the numbers quoted by those who 'edited' Exodus)
-
2) Didn't It see that coming? If It did then ....
I like the deferential way you capitalise the pronoun when you are referring to god!
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
It's up to him to refute my suggestion, then, and not you, by the way.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
And how did your single brain cell manage that comment?
Sadly, you haven't a clue about what I'm talking about with Jung, something far more important than monotheistic religions.
-
NS, knowing stuff is one of life's mysteries to Bashers - the acquisition and retention of data just passes him by. Every time something crops up which he doesn't understand, he accuses the writer of having just Googled it.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
It's up to him to refute my suggestion, then, and not you, by the way.
So that would be a no to any evidence then.
If it is OK just to make accusations with no evidence and then refuse to back them up, then in principle it would be OK for someone to suggest you only became a teacher because you wanted to molest children, and not provide any evidence.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
Poor old Basher thinks that because he's uneducated we all must be.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
Poor old Basher thinks that because he's uneducated we all must be.
Prety lame, that.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
Poor old Basher thinks that because he's uneducated we all must be.
Prety lame, that.
You mean like your claim that I get my comments off Google?
And your great spelling?
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
Poor old Basher thinks that because he's uneducated we all must be.
Prety lame, that.
You mean like your claim that I get my comments off Google?
And your great spelling?
Why, thank you! Compliments are always welcome, whatever the source!
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
Poor old Basher thinks that because he's uneducated we all must be.
Prety lame, that.
You mean like your claim that I get my comments off Google?
And your great spelling?
Why, thank you! Compliments are always welcome, whatever the source!
Ok, I should have put a smiley by that to show you I was being sarcastic, but I thought the italics would have done that, but I guess your single brain cell couldn't cope with it.
I see you are very desperate for compliments to boost your waning self image and your lack of self worth. So, "You are doing very well considering your impoverished circumstances. Keep trying, don't give up!" ;D
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
Poor old Basher thinks that because he's uneducated we all must be.
Prety lame, that.
You mean like your claim that I get my comments off Google?
And your great spelling?
Why, thank you! Compliments are always welcome, whatever the source!
Ok, I should have put a smiley by that to show you I was being sarcastic, but I thought the italics would have done that, but I guess your single brain cell couldn't cope with it.
I see you are very desperate for compliments to boost your waning self image and your lack of self worth. So, "You are doing very well considering your impoverished circumstances. Keep trying, don't give up!" ;D
My single brain cell didn't realise you knew what sarcasm is!
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
I've just realised this gets us back to the OP. My motive in doing it was a psychological one. Mankind's psychic history is one of ever growing consciousness which meant that its relationship with the unconscious had to change. The ever renewing of the covenant by God with Its people was just the realisation of the prophets that things had changed for man's consciousness with the unconscious - which is where the idea of God has come from from the beginning - though they didn't perceive things in this way, of course. This would also explain why God has gone from a wild brute (instincts etc.), being as unpredictable as the wind, to being perceived as a more loving entity; as our consciousness has demanded a fairer deal with our animal instinctual roots. And in parallel to this our religions have gone from primitive paganisms with their debase and lowly outlooks to our more relatively rationalistic and civilised monotheistic set-ups today.
I just wondered how out Christian friends would account for the fact that God keeps shifting the goal posts, getting things wrong from the start and changing Its mind all the time to come up with another new covenant with Its people.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
I've just realised this gets us back to the OP. My motive in doing it was a psychological one. Mankind's psychic history is one of ever growing consciousness which meant that its relationship with the unconscious had to change. The ever renewing of the covenant by God with Its people was just the realisation of the prophets that things had changed for man's consciousness with the unconscious - which is where the idea of God has come from from the beginning - though they didn't perceive things in this way, of course. This would also explain why God has gone from a wild brute (instincts etc.), being as unpredictable as the wind, to being perceived as a more loving entity; as our consciousness has demanded a fairer deal with our animal instinctual roots. And in parallel to this our religions have gone from primitive paganisms with their debase and lowly outlooks to our more relatively rationalistic and civilised monotheistic set-ups today.
I just wondered how out Christian friends would account for the fact that God keeps shifting the goal posts, getting things wrong from the start and changing Its mind all the time to come up with another new covenant with Its people.
God doesn't change the goalposts - men do.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
Poor old Basher thinks that because he's uneducated we all must be.
Prety lame, that.
You mean like your claim that I get my comments off Google?
And your great spelling?
Why, thank you! Compliments are always welcome, whatever the source!
Ok, I should have put a smiley by that to show you I was being sarcastic, but I thought the italics would have done that, but I guess your single brain cell couldn't cope with it.
I see you are very desperate for compliments to boost your waning self image and your lack of self worth. So, "You are doing very well considering your impoverished circumstances. Keep trying, don't give up!" ;D
My single brain cell didn't realise you knew what sarcasm is!
You keep walking into them don't you?
So you admit you only have one brain cell. We can agree on that one.
I would never have assumed that your one brain cell would have had the capacity to fathom out what I understand and know, just as a child doesn't understand the adult world. ;D
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
I've just realised this gets us back to the OP. My motive in doing it was a psychological one. Mankind's psychic history is one of ever growing consciousness which meant that its relationship with the unconscious had to change. The ever renewing of the covenant by God with Its people was just the realisation of the prophets that things had changed for man's consciousness with the unconscious - which is where the idea of God has come from from the beginning - though they didn't perceive things in this way, of course. This would also explain why God has gone from a wild brute (instincts etc.), being as unpredictable as the wind, to being perceived as a more loving entity; as our consciousness has demanded a fairer deal with our animal instinctual roots. And in parallel to this our religions have gone from primitive paganisms with their debase and lowly outlooks to our more relatively rationalistic and civilised monotheistic set-ups today.
I just wondered how out Christian friends would account for the fact that God keeps shifting the goal posts, getting things wrong from the start and changing Its mind all the time to come up with another new covenant with Its people.
God doesn't change the goalposts - men do.
And round and round we go...
How do men do that?
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
Poor old Basher thinks that because he's uneducated we all must be.
Prety lame, that.
You mean like your claim that I get my comments off Google?
And your great spelling?
Why, thank you! Compliments are always welcome, whatever the source!
Ok, I should have put a smiley by that to show you I was being sarcastic, but I thought the italics would have done that, but I guess your single brain cell couldn't cope with it.
I see you are very desperate for compliments to boost your waning self image and your lack of self worth. So, "You are doing very well considering your impoverished circumstances. Keep trying, don't give up!" ;D
My single brain cell didn't realise you knew what sarcasm is!
You keep walking into them don't you?
So you admit you only have one brain cell. We can agree on that one.
I would never have assumed that your one brain cell would have had the capacity to fathom out what I understand and know, just as a child doesn't understand the adult world. ;D
Well, if I did only have one brain cell, it would still be enough to outsmart you. :)
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
Poor old Basher thinks that because he's uneducated we all must be.
Prety lame, that.
You mean like your claim that I get my comments off Google?
And your great spelling?
Why, thank you! Compliments are always welcome, whatever the source!
Ok, I should have put a smiley by that to show you I was being sarcastic, but I thought the italics would have done that, but I guess your single brain cell couldn't cope with it.
I see you are very desperate for compliments to boost your waning self image and your lack of self worth. So, "You are doing very well considering your impoverished circumstances. Keep trying, don't give up!" ;D
My single brain cell didn't realise you knew what sarcasm is!
You keep walking into them don't you?
So you admit you only have one brain cell. We can agree on that one.
I would never have assumed that your one brain cell would have had the capacity to fathom out what I understand and know, just as a child doesn't understand the adult world. ;D
Well, if I did only have one brain cell, it would still be enough to outsmart you. :)
Delusional to the end, how sad! ;D
-
"Delusional to the end, how sad!" I'm glad you've come to the end; but there's no need to be so hard on yourself. ;)
-
"Delusional to the end, how sad!" I'm glad you've come to the end; but there's no need to be so hard on yourself. ;)
And now incoherent babbling, a real sign that Basher's single brain cell has overloading.
-
"Delusional to the end, how sad!" I'm glad you've come to the end; but there's no need to be so hard on yourself. ;)
And now incoherent babbling, a real sign that Basher's single brain cell has overloading.
Is overloading, or has overloaded? It's always so difficult to follow what you say, even with my high intellectual capacity. :)
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
I don't suppose for one moment the ill-read Bashers has ever picked up a volume of Jung in his life.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
I don't suppose for one moment the ill-read Bashers has ever picked up a volume of Jung in his life.
Prove that I am ill-read! If you cannot pass that test, apologise. Can you pass the test?
Incidentally, since when does reading Jung qualify you as being well-read?
I am an admirer of the great Russian novelists and writers: Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Pushkin, Turgenev, Chekhov, Tolstoy. Have you read them? If not I consider you are not well-read.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
I don't suppose for one moment the ill-read Bashers has ever picked up a volume of Jung in his life.
Prove that I am ill-read! If you cannot pass that test, apologise. Can you pass the test?
Incidentally, since when does reading Jung qualify you as being well-read?
Prove your accusation about plagiarism against Jack Knave otherwise apologise!
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
I don't suppose for one moment the ill-read Bashers has ever picked up a volume of Jung in his life.
Prove that I am ill-read! If you cannot pass that test, apologise. Can you pass the test?
Incidentally, since when does reading Jung qualify you as being well-read?
Prove your accusation about plagiarism against Jack Knave otherwise apologise!
He hasn't even denied it. So altruistic of you to stand up for him, and you being so well-known for apologising so often yourself.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
I don't suppose for one moment the ill-read Bashers has ever picked up a volume of Jung in his life.
Prove that I am ill-read! If you cannot pass that test, apologise. Can you pass the test?
Incidentally, since when does reading Jung qualify you as being well-read?
Prove your accusation about plagiarism against Jack Knave otherwise apologise!
He hasn't even denied it. So altruistic of you to stand up for him, and you being so well-known for apologising so often yourself.
implicitally he has, but leaving that aside, you have asked for proof of an accusation but are unwilling to offer it despite being asked for it multiple times. And that I raise it is of no relevance, your position doesn't even manage to be a tu quoque but is an irrelevant bastard child of a tu quoque and an ad hominem. Fallacy squared.
-
"Delusional to the end, how sad!" I'm glad you've come to the end; but there's no need to be so hard on yourself. ;)
And now incoherent babbling, a real sign that Basher's single brain cell has overloading.
Is overloading, or has overloaded? It's always so difficult to follow what you say, even with my high intellectual capacity. :)
Well yeah. But this is pointless. If you want the last say on this, to save your pride, go ahead and do it.
-
"Delusional to the end, how sad!" I'm glad you've come to the end; but there's no need to be so hard on yourself. ;)
And now incoherent babbling, a real sign that Basher's single brain cell has overloading.
Is overloading, or has overloaded? It's always so difficult to follow what you say, even with my high intellectual capacity. :)
Well yeah. But this is pointless. If you want the last say on this, to save your pride, go ahead and do it.
I agree. Have a word with NS as well.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
I don't suppose for one moment the ill-read Bashers has ever picked up a volume of Jung in his life.
Prove that I am ill-read! If you cannot pass that test, apologise. Can you pass the test?
Incidentally, since when does reading Jung qualify you as being well-read?
Prove your accusation about plagiarism against Jack Knave otherwise apologise!
He hasn't even denied it.
Because I wasn't going to stoop to your low level. It was a stupid and ignorant comment.
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
I don't suppose for one moment the ill-read Bashers has ever picked up a volume of Jung in his life.
Prove that I am ill-read! If you cannot pass that test, apologise. Can you pass the test?
Incidentally, since when does reading Jung qualify you as being well-read?
Prove your accusation about plagiarism against Jack Knave otherwise apologise!
He hasn't even denied it.
Because I wasn't going to stoop to your low level. It was a stupid and ignorant comment.
Go on, stoop to my level!
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
I don't suppose for one moment the ill-read Bashers has ever picked up a volume of Jung in his life.
Prove that I am ill-read! If you cannot pass that test, apologise. Can you pass the test?
Incidentally, since when does reading Jung qualify you as being well-read?
Prove your accusation about plagiarism against Jack Knave otherwise apologise!
He hasn't even denied it.
Because I wasn't going to stoop to your low level. It was a stupid and ignorant comment.
Go on, stoop to my level!
No thanks. Again you have acknowledged your level in life!!! ;D
I like to leave the pigs in the pig sty where they belong and occupy the higher ground, that is commensurate with my evolutionary standing, for myself and others like me.
-
Massively long strings of quotes embedded in quotes on this thread. As has been pointed out a few times recently, this is very hard for visually impaired members of the forum. In this case it is a mercy if they cannot read all the shit you are both posting, but it would be nice if they could decide that for themselves.
-
One of those things that bloody annoys me >:(
-
I think Job is also forward-looking.
Very much so. But I'm sure you know that Jung didn't think those ancient scribes came up with any satisfactory answers to the problems it poses :)
We still don't have answers. >:( :(
I can suggest two:
"There is no God" and "Shit happens".
Jung would have seen it in archetypal psychological terms so the issue of God was not present as such but only as a symbol and image of the collective unconscious, and that the 'action' was between consciousness and the collective unconscious and so was not subject to the whim of random causal events. What caused Job was the advancement of consciousness and its push back against the rule of the unconscious/instincts in man's life. I.e. a more of a cooperation between the two in the machinations of man's psyche and life.
Where was that googled from?
since are accusing the writer of plagiarism, any proof of that? It's quite a serious accusation, so care to justify it?
I don't suppose for one moment the ill-read Bashers has ever picked up a volume of Jung in his life.
Prove that I am ill-read! If you cannot pass that test, apologise. Can you pass the test?
Incidentally, since when does reading Jung qualify you as being well-read?
Prove your accusation about plagiarism against Jack Knave otherwise apologise!
He hasn't even denied it.
Because I wasn't going to stoop to your low level. It was a stupid and ignorant comment.
Go on, stoop to my level!
No thanks. Again you have acknowledged your level in life!!! ;D
I like to leave the pigs in the pig sty where they belong and occupy the higher ground, that is commensurate with my evolutionary standing, for myself and others like me.
Your "evolutionary standing?" :D :D It it's survival of the fittest, and you are what is left, what the heck must the unfit have been like? :D :D
-
Massively long strings of quotes embedded in quotes on this thread. As has been pointed out a few times recently, this is very hard for visually impaired members of the forum. In this case it is a mercy if they cannot read all the shit you are both posting, but it would be nice if they could decide that for themselves.
Indeed but posting on any form of hand held and it can take some time to delete.
-
Quite true, NS, but this thread is getting ridiculous.
-
Agree, cyberman, but earlier to delete a chain took me 2 minutes. But there we are
-
But you could just click "reply" instead of clicking "quote".
(Look how good we're all being now! haha)
I'm not saying "Thou shalt not quote"; I was just struck by the very very long strings here.
-
Your "evolutionary standing?" :D :D It it's survival of the fittest, and you are what is left, what the heck must the unfit have been like? :D :D
You don't know me so you can't possibly have any idea what you are talking about.
-
Your "evolutionary standing?" :D :D It it's survival of the fittest, and you are what is left, what the heck must the unfit have been like? :D :D
You don't know me so you can't possibly have any idea what you are talking about.
And of course, I can say the same about myself.
-
Your "evolutionary standing?" :D :D It it's survival of the fittest, and you are what is left, what the heck must the unfit have been like? :D :D
You don't know me so you can't possibly have any idea what you are talking about.
And of course, I can say the same about myself.
So why don't we all just keep to the debate issues and leave the unfounded personal garbage to one side?
-
Your "evolutionary standing?" :D :D It it's survival of the fittest, and you are what is left, what the heck must the unfit have been like? :D :D
You don't know me so you can't possibly have any idea what you are talking about.
And of course, I can say the same about myself.
So why don't we all just keep to the debate issues and leave the unfounded personal garbage to one side?
Agreed.
-
But you could just click "reply" instead of clicking "quote".
(Look how good we're all being now! haha)
I'm not saying "Thou shalt not quote"; I was just struck by the very very long strings here.
The problem with this, at least when interspersed with other people's posts, is that you lose the link to where the person is quoting from. Best to use Reply and delete the unwanted quotes bits before posting IMO.
As you say though, this thread is getting a bit daft.
-
Best to use Reply and delete the unwanted quotes bits before posting IMO.
It's actually quite hard to do that with a touch device. The International Skeptics Forum software automatically deletes any quote more than one level deep. I wonder if we could get that functionality.
-
Ahhh but you cannot prove that! Nothing in my post is delusional because God has said about himself that he is NOT a liar. So maybe you see from this post by the things you say we can see you attack that which you have no answer for and do not understand.
Thank you for proving my point, Sass! The delusion that "God" really exists has addled you mind completely.
Now confirm the fact by telling us that sometimes he talks to you. ;D ;D ;D
It is sad that a man of your status and years has nothing but the above to offer... :(
You know that one day it will all be laid open to the eyes of all.
Until then you have nothing but what you see to hold onto...
-
There's a flood thread on the faith sharing board, folks.
Any chance of continuing deluge debate there?
What. You want a deluge of people flooding onto the flood thread.... ::) ;D
-
Hope is actually correct.
What we DO know of second century Christianity suggests that, although they shared a core doctrine, practice, procedure, language and leadership structure varied widley within congregations or groups of churches.
Only when Constantine transferred the structure of an Imperial-style beaurocracy, with all its' opportunities for vice, corruption and self-promotion, on the Church, did those separate structures end (sometimes at the point of an Imperial sword)
You know nothing of the early Church. All you need to do is read the Ante-Nicene Fathers to see how Orthodox they are, especially concerning the role of the Church and that we are to keep that which has been handed down to us.
Spirit and Truth by Christ being the only way was handed down...not manmade rules and regulations to cause people to follow an earthly power... not the nicest of truths but there you are... People do the funniest of things...