Jump to content

What is a god?


Recommended Posts

You are the one making an assertion: "creator being" is equivalent to "survival instinct." Unless that is demonstrated, saying "those are not necessarily equivalent" (the only assertion I've made) is literally just a statement of fact.

 

And again, I am saying that they are equivalent in their function while you are saying they are not equivalent because they don't have to be equal. Your argument is not a counter to my statement.

 

We could also argue that "sub" and "grinder" don't have to mean the same thing... but in practice they are the same thing.

 

Further, it is pretty easy to imagine them as separable, so I would even say that "they are not equivalent" isn't a particularly bold statement. Suppose there was a conscious being that created our universe. Suppose that being is dead. You see?

 

Sure it's easy to imagine them as separable, but that is not my argument.

 

Note that none of these statements are the same:

 

"Creator being is not necessarily equivalent to survival instinct."

"Creator being is not equivalent to survival instinct."

"A creator being cannot also be a survival instinct."

"The creator being is not also the survival instinct."

 

The first is all I'm really willing to say, since neither "creator being" nor "survival instinct" have been coherently defined in this discussion, IMO. You can define each in terms of the other, but then you may as well just say "flargaloo" is defined as "poppinsmoot" and vice versa.

 

And if the actual use of flargaloo and poppinsmoot were the same then that would be true.

 

For instance, imagine all the different descriptions and attributions commonly associated with the human endorphin response. While the attributions and descriptions differ from cause to cause, in reality they are all really the same physical response. You could say that "Love at First Sight" is not the same thing as "Runner's High" while they are both actually the same physical response.

 

I am saying that the differences in attributions to the various aspects I listed above are all from the same source as they are all accomplish the same purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No. Not at all. At the beginning of Christianity(Jesus, His disciples, and their disciples), the Law was very much important. They were, after all, Jews. In fact, keeping the Law was a big part of Jes

This is quite a famous debate in the early church. I think the best answer, as you and ydoaPs have demonstrated, is that the Bible contradicts itself on this point.

I tried to cover as broad a spectrum as possible using the smallest amount of space.   Now, in retrospect, I see that I could have just stated: anyone that doesn't believe precisely what I believe a

I look at it this way: Take the word "God" and it's synonyms of "Creator", "Supreme Being" and others, and replace that with the phrase "that which is unchangeable".

 

"God", as a concept, refers to the Universe that we no, and the universe that we do not know. We see "God" in action in that which we do know and can observe and guess at "God" in that which we have yet to discover.

 

When we observe the universe, we tend to see things that change.

 

"God" is a philosophical unified theory. "God" connects various scientific disciplines and philosophies.

 

Can you explain this connection ???

 

As I see it, from a common perspective, when the Bill of Rights, for example, decalred a set of inalienable human rights, and attributed their granting to a Creator, it established that they were "that which is unchangeable". Whether they are allowed by the governments of man is immaterial, these rights still exist and always will.

 

Its a metaphor. Rights mean dick without government enforcement. Telling the native indians, "so sorry, you had these rights" after they were slaughtered is meaningless. We agree to abide and enforce these rights as a society, they are not found in nature.

 

As such, whether or not God exists, he exists as a useful shorthand for the limits of human existence as Humanity, being endowed with seemingly infinite potential also has infinite potential for destruction. As we find those limits where humanity can not cross, or should not cross, there is "God" -- real or imagined -- driving fence posts and "keep out" signs.

 

IMO, all we have is humanity. Rather than live within the boundaries of our environment, we try to rise above it. Nature is harsh and so we fight. We know that we will lose in the end, so we try to appeal to the guy in charge.

 

For instance, looking at the 10 Commandments:

 

Don't get me started.

 

Harris from 3:30 - 5:30

 

Harris

 

Hitchens

 

Carlin

Edited by john5746
Link to post
Share on other sites

For instance, looking at the 10 Commandments:

No means to be offensive here, jryan, but which 10 commandments? The original 10 commandments were in hebrew. And they weren't precisely what you said here.

 

Here is a decent translation (parallel to the hebrew original): http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm

 

1) You shall have no other Gods and you shall make no false idols: This is, at it's heart, a statement of authority. An argument for why you should not question the wisdom of the rest of the commandments.

I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

 

2) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God: In short, it tells us not to drive our own fence posts.

Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;

...

thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;

NOW comes the part about the idols (which, btw, is problematic as it is, seeing as according to the above law, having a cross *in general* (as a pendant or a symbol at all) is not allowed.

 

Your interpretation is personal, jryan. The context makes it clear to me that this is about a jealous god demanding his subjects be loyal. It's about power.

 

3) Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy: Reflect on these rules often, and go out of your way to do so once a week.

That's an interpretation, and one that is personal. If you go by the literal translation, you're wrong, it's about the seventh day of creation.

 

If you go by any other interpretation, then others are worth just as much as yours does. The original, btw, *CONtINUES*. God explains, see:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;

but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates;

for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

This is about worship. It's about remembering how God is almighty and created everything and took a day off. He's quite explicit in explaining this 'rest on the sabbath' law, even though Christians seemed to ignore this one too.

4) Honor your father and mother: An appeal to us to respect our parents, and their wisdom. This makes a lot of sense to me, but I see where it might not to someone who grew up in an abusive household. But in that regard, you would find that those parents were not following these commandments... GOTO 1.

Yeah, okay, I'll give you that.. again, I am not sure what you mean here with your very personal viewpoint (I can totally interpret this differently, but.. fine).

 

The original, just for consistency:

Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

 

5) You shall not murder: Self explanatory.

 

6) You shall not commit adultery: This is a longer discussion that I want to get into here, but as you can see in the "Sex" thread, I find wisdom here that I didn't see in my youth.

 

7) You shall not steal: Also fairly self explanatory. But I think at it's root is the understanding that societies that condone thievery are weak societies. In this commandment lies the respect of personal property that is the underpinning of all healthy societies.

 

8) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor: Another fairly self explanatory law. This law establishes the need for truth in public discourse. Like respect for personal property, healthy societies are built of truths. I don't think many people would argue that our legal system works better when ruling on what actually happened, for instance.

12
Thou shalt not murder.
{S}
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
{S}
Thou shalt not steal.
{S}
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
{S}

Yeah those are the 'duh' laws. Still, they're later explained in much much depth in Deutronomy.

 

9) You shall not covet your neighbor's wife (spouse): This rule in part augments #6 as it leads you to confront your desires before they are translated into action. The other part of this is less obvious but just as important: If you are coveting your neighbors spouse you are probably taking your own for granted.

Yeah, no. The full sentence (in hebrew/aramaic) is this:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house;
{S}
thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
{P}

This is about not covetting anything that doesn't belong to you. Since women were pretty much property, they are grouped together with the neighbor's house, servants, ox and asses. Honestly, I am not sure this is very good example for moral standing in the bible, considering the placement of women in it. But again, sure, why not, interpret it as you wish... just don't claim your interpretation is "the example" or "the norm". It's not.
10) You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor:
Similar to #9 in form and purpose.

That's part of the commandment above, not separate from it.

 

The only reason I ended up with 9 and not 10, is because the first commandment ("I am your god... do not have any others") is actually two commandments (one saying 'do not have any other gods' and another 'idols').

 

I would recommend you look here:
(sometimes wikipedia actually rules) at the divisions of the laws. Also, go over the *ORIGINAL* text of the bible -- if you're already intended on inserting it into the discussion as an example, then at least use the original text, which is not like the translated (and pre-interpreted) text. Not at all.

 

~moo
Link to post
Share on other sites
When we observe the universe, we tend to see things that change.

 

I never said we don't see things that change. You have changed physiologically since yesterday, does that make you a different person?

 

 

Can you explain this connection ???

 

I've already done that, you should read it.

 

 

Its a metaphor. Rights mean dick without government enforcement. Telling the native indians, "so sorry, you had these rights" after they were slaughtered is meaningless. We agree to abide and enforce these rights as a society, they are not found in nature.

 

You ignore that the movements to enforce these rights over the generations have been driven by religious people such as Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln and many others.

 

I wouldn't go down the path of atheistic governments and their track record on enforcing human rights, if I were you.

 

 

 

IMO, all we have is humanity. Rather than live within the boundaries of our environment, we try to rise above it. Nature is harsh and so we fight. We know that we will lose in the end, so we try to appeal to the guy in charge.

 

I disagree. I think our dominion over nature is fairly well established. We have the ability to destroy our natural environment and still live rather well. We could overtake wild animal populations with domesticated ones, and populate the entire globe.... and we could eradicate ourselves just as easily.

 

It is this great power that is limited by powers higher than ourselves (real or imagined). I also find it rather interesting to view the governments of the 20th century that attempted to rid themselves of religion and God and establish a common humanist morality... not only did they become the most monstrous nations in the world with regard to human rights, but they also have the worst environmental records among all nations.

 

 

 

Don't get me started.

 

Harris from 3:30 - 5:30

 

Harris

 

Hitchens

 

Carlin

 

Please do start. If you accept my assertion that God is used as an unchangeable source of the rules by which humanity must live (be he real or imagined) the 10 Commandments become common sense. If I say that gravity is created by "God", it doesn't invalidate gravity. Things still fall.

 

Society also follows a set of laws that history shows us can not be changed, but they are harder to see at times as we can temporarily break these laws with seemingly no lasting harm. Unfortunately, as these laws become more commonly broken, societal collapse ensues.

 

By the way, I don't have access to youtube where I am, so feel free to explain briefly the assertions in the video if you think they represent your beliefs.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
No means to be offensive here, jryan, but which 10 commandments? The original 10 commandments were in hebrew. And they weren't precisely what you said here.

 

I'm aware of these varying divisions of the 10 Commandments, mooeypoo. That doesn't change my point. It simply combines or separates my 10 points into a different conglomeration of my same 10 points.

 

I'll address a few of your non-organizational points now.

 

Your interpretation is personal, jryan. The context makes it clear to me that this is about a jealous god demanding his subjects be loyal. It's about power.

 

Or a parent demanding that children obey safety rules. As I pointed out in my original post, these rules are simply establishing the God's authority for establishing the rules that are to follow.

 

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;

but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates;

for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

This is about worship. It's about remembering how God is almighty and created everything and took a day off. He's quite explicit in explaining this 'rest on the sabbath' law, even though Christians seemed to ignore this one too.

 

Wait... people don't follow rules? NO WAY! ;)

 

You will find many Christians don't follow other ten commandments as well, but I would guess you would still agree with the commandment over the individual Christian, right? I would argue that those Christians that break the other commandments have really failed to follow the earlier commandments (Jewish 1-3, Catholic 1&2 etc.).

 

Once you are stealing and screwing your neighbor's wife you have put many things above God in your heart.

 

The rest is mostly objection on my format, which is meaningless to debate.

 

The one final point is your statement concerning Deutronomy, which I also know. I am using the Ten Commandments as an example -- as I made clear in my original post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware of these varying divisions of the 10 Commandments, mooeypoo. That doesn't change my point. It simply combines or separates my 10 points into a different conglomeration of my same 10 points.

It's more than just the order or combination, though, in some cases it actual different (or broader, and hence possibly different) meaning or interpretation to the text.

 

You gave *your* interpretation, but surely you can see that not only are there other interpretations that equal yours, but if you alreayd choose to bring forth a text as an example, you should use its *original* version.

 

Or a parent demanding that children obey safety rules. As I pointed out in my original post, these rules are simply establishing the God's authority for establishing the rules that are to follow.

If I can bring a different interpretation (which I can) and find you 10 different interpretations (Which I can), that are all making sense according to this text, and all have different 'sense' than yours, then I am not sure I understand the POINT you're making.

 

We can argue about the literal/non-literal/symbolic/personal meaning of the text forever and ever (and it could be interesting, indeed) but how does that help us in the current topic of defining what is a GOD?

 

 

 

 

Wait... people don't follow rules? NO WAY! ;)

I didn't say "people" I said christians.

 

It always fascinated me how many christians fight and cry and yell for the ten commandments to be displayed in courts, or for our society to follow the ten commandments when Christianity -- almost by definition -- disobeys two of those laws.

 

Preserving the Sabbath is *VERY* clear. It's not "the seventh day" (allowing anyone to decide that sunday is 7 because we start counting from monday), it's *SABBATH*, and not only is it CLARIFIED in the text, the text goes into *detail* of what yo're allowed and not allowed to do.

Christianity disobeys this law.

 

And the second is the image/symbol, which is also not just clear, but CLARIFIED. HAving either a cross or even the *idea* of a cross is illegal by this law, quite obviously, literally, from the text.

Christianity disobeys this law.

 

So.. christianity, in general (and sure, yeah, there might be exceptions, but this is the general statement), disobeys two of the 10 laws clearly, by definition, before we even start counting the disobedience out of 'sin' that individuals do.

 

The one final point is your statement concerning Deutronomy, which I also know. I am using the Ten Commandments as an example -- as I made clear in my original post.

Example to what, though? The interpretation is clearly subjective, or you wouldn't have so many factions and religions claiming to follow it, each interpreting it differently.

 

~moo

Link to post
Share on other sites

The beginning of Christianity marked the end of the old dispensation and the beginning of the new dispensation. The old dispensation had ten commandments and hundreds of procedures. The new dispensation reduced the entire sha-bang down to just two guidelines; love god and love your neighbor. It amounted to trust your instincts or inner voice and empathize with others so you can know the right thing to do. "not written on stone tablets but written on human hearts".

 

The new dispensation was designed for the children of the promise. But they were a minority. The children of the bondwoman, were those who were still slaves to law. They were the majority and would re-institute laws of commandments contained in ordinances and added even more.

 

One way to explain this contrast between the children of the promise and children of the bondwoman, is to consider a young child who is a natural musical genius. This child can just pick up the violin and start to play. He is not under all the laws of music school, but under has his own laws, written in his brain. He/she just needs to follow their inner voice, which teaches him to play. Even if there was no such thing as music school, he still can play like a pro.

 

In the case of the new dispensation, there were people with the intent of the old dispensation written in their hearts and heads. They didn't need man-made laws and procedures, but could pick up the violin of life and play the intent of the law without training.

 

The children of the bondwomen, were more like children with marginal or no musical talent. They needed tutoring; music school for its laws, procedures and practice. With this procedural training they can approach and even achieve what came natural to the child of the promise. The child of the promise only had to trust his instincts (inner voice) and empathize with the great masters of music to learn their ways (love his neighbor).

 

Picture this situation, we have our child genius who can pick up the violin and play like a master almost immediately. The children of the bondwomen, can not see this as possible. Since they depend on the music laws and procedure, they might say, "he is only 5, so he needs to start with a toy fiddle learning the first string."

 

It may be hard for our child genius to stupid down to this basic level since his inner voice want to run free with his music output beyond the graduate school level. This inner voice (god), might make it look as though he is breaking the law of first grade.

 

Laws are not made for the righteous man, but for the sinner. What happens when laws are used against the righteous. He does not become the sinner, rather the caretakers of the laws become the criminals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The beginning of Christianity marked the end of the old dispensation and the beginning of the new dispensation. The old dispensation had ten commandments and hundreds of procedures. The new dispensation reduced the entire sha-bang down to just two guidelines; love god and love your neighbor. It amounted to trust your instincts or inner voice and empathize with others so you can know the right thing to do. "not written on stone tablets but written on human hearts".
No. Not at all. At the beginning of Christianity(Jesus, His disciples, and their disciples), the Law was very much important. They were, after all, Jews. In fact, keeping the Law was a big part of Jesus's teachings(it's even one of the main themes of Matthew).

 

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, YE SHALL IN NO CASE enter into the kingdom of heaven."-Matthew 5:17-20

 

In that passage, Jesus is VERY explicit in saying that we are to follow the letter of the Law until He fulfills it at the second coming.

 

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."-Matthew 7:17-20

 

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as [one] having authority, and not as the scribes."-Matthew 7:24-29

 

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."-Matthew 16:24-28

 

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions."-Matthew 19:16-22

 

"Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away."-Matthew 21:18-19

 

This passage is pretty much the same thing as the fruit passage above.

 

"For [the kingdom of heaven is] as a man travelling into a far country, [who] called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made [them] other five talents. And likewise he that [had received] two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, [there] thou hast [that is] thine. His lord answered and said unto him, [Thou] wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give [it] unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."-Matthew 25:14-30

 

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."-Matthew 25:31-46

 

It wasn't until Paul's perversion of Christianity(based of what is erily similar to a certain kind of seizure) that keeping the Law was discarded. This is manifest in the various conflicts between Paul and Peter(one of which Paul himself describes). Who do you think knows more about what Jesus taught: a man who was THERE(and whom Jesus called the Rock upon which the Church is to be built) or a man who never actually met Jesus and doesn't even quote Him to support his opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all have it..........

 

The God (not to be confused with "a god") is the:

 

Moral attribute of love: 1 Jn 4:8,16

Moral attribute of Light (truth): 1 Jn 1:5; John 17:17

Moral attribute of holiness: 1 Pet 1:16

Moral attribute of mercy: Ps 103:8

Moral attribute of gentleness: Ps 18:35

Moral attribute of righteousness: Ps 129:4

Moral attribute of goodness: Rom 2:4

Moral attribute of perfection: Matthew 5:48

Moral attribute of justice: Isaiah 45:21

Moral attribute of faithfulness: 1 Corinthians 10:13

Moral attribute of grace: Psalm 103:8

 

God is everywhere (omnipresent): Mk 5:10; Jude 6; Rev 20:1-3; 1 Ki 8:27; 2 Chron 2:6; 6:18; Isa 66:1; Acts 7:49; 17:27-28; Ps 139:7-13

 

God is all knowing (omniscient): Ps 139:1-6; Job 42:2; Acts 2:23; 1 Tim 1:17

 

God is all powerful (omnipotent): Gen 17:1; 35:11; Rom 13:1; 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 19:6

 

God is a Spirit, without flesh and bones: Luke 24:39; John 4:24; Matthew 16:17

 

God is invisible: Ex 33:20; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; 1 Tim 6:16; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17; Heb 11:27

 

God is immutable (unchangeable) in his nature: Mal 3:6; but God can change his mind: Jonah 3:10; Gen 6:6

 

God is not a creature and never had a beginning point, being eternal: Deut 33:27; Isa 9:6; 1 Tim 1:17; Isa 44:6

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't until Paul's perversion of Christianity(based of what is erily similar to a certain kind of seizure) that keeping the Law was discarded. This is manifest in the various conflicts between Paul and Peter(one of which Paul himself describes). Who do you think knows more about what Jesus taught: a man who was THERE(and whom Jesus called the Rock upon which the Church is to be built) or a man who never actually met Jesus and doesn't even quote Him to support his opinion?

 

I beg to differ.

 

Peter agreed that the gentiles did not have to follow Jewish law.

 

Acts 15:

 

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

 

5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

 

 

Then Peter scolded the people who wanted the gentiles to obey the laws of Moses

 

 

""6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.

 

 

So, it is clear that Peter did not intend that the gentiles should be required to adhere to Jewish law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I beg to differ.

 

Peter agreed that the gentiles did not have to follow Jewish law.

This is quite a famous debate in the early church. I think the best answer, as you and ydoaPs have demonstrated, is that the Bible contradicts itself on this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seeing as you're quoting the new testament as well as the old, I'll take it your "The" is "The Christian". It's not quite "The" God of every other religion.

 

Certainly not.

I am referring to The God aka:

 

ADONAI: “Lord” (Genesis 15:2; Judges 6:15)

 

EL, ELOAH: God "mighty, strong, prominent" (Genesis 7:1; Isaiah 9:6)

 

ELOHIM: God “Creator, Mighty and Strong” (Genesis 17:7; Jeremiah 31:33) (Elohim) speaks the world into existence (Genesis 1:1).

 

EL SHADDAI: “God Almighty,” “The Mighty One of Jacob” (Genesis 49:24; Psalm 132:2,5)

 

EL ELYON: “Most High" (Deuteronomy 26:19)

 

EL ROI: "God of Seeing" (Genesis 16:13)

 

EL-OLAM: "Everlasting God" (Psalm 90:1-3)

 

EL-GIBHOR: “Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6)

 

I AM WHO I AM: (Exodus 3:14).

 

Jehovah-jireh (the Lord will provide)

 

Jehovah-rapha (the Lord who heals)

 

Jehovah-nissi (the Lord our banner)

 

Jehovah-Shalom (the Lord our peace)

 

Jehovah-ra-ah (the Lord my shepherd)

 

Jehovah-tsidkenu (the Lord our righteousness)

 

Jehovah-shammad (the Lord is present)

 

Jehovah-Elohim (the Lord God)

 

Jehovah Sabaoth (the Lord of hosts)

 

YHWH / YAHWEH / JEHOVAH: “LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4; Daniel 9:14) –

 

YAHWEH-JIREH: "The Lord will Provide" (Genesis 22:14)

 

YAHWEH-RAPHA: "The Lord Who Heals" (Exodus 15:26)

 

YAHWEH-NISSI: "The Lord Our Banner" (Exodus 17:15)

 

YAHWEH-M'KADDESH: "The Lord Who Sanctifies, Makes Holy" (Leviticus 20:8; Ezekiel 37:28)

 

YAHWEH-SHALOM: "The Lord Our Peace" (Judges 6:24)

 

YAHWEH-ELOHIM: "LORD God" (Genesis 2:4; Psalm 59:5)

 

YAHWEH-TSIDKENU: "The Lord Our Righteousness” (Jeremiah 33:16)

 

YAHWEH-ROHI: "The Lord Our Shepherd" (Psalm 23:1)

 

YAHWEH-SHAMMAH: "The Lord is There” (Ezekiel 48:35)

 

YAHWEH-SABAOTH: "The Lord of Hosts" (Isaiah 1:24; Psalm 46:7)

 

:)


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
This is quite a famous debate in the early church. I think the best answer, as you and ydoaPs have demonstrated, is that the Bible contradicts itself on this point.

 

Nice jab. :)

 

The 'law of Moses' is intended for Jews.

 

It is not intended for Gentiles.

 

The conflict is amongst men. Not the bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it is clear that Peter did not intend that the gentiles should be required to adhere to Jewish law.

For the confrontation Paul described see Galations 2:11-17. However, I'll type out some passages from texts you probably don't have to give you a fuller sense of their relationship.

 

"For some among the gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my word by interpretations on many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the Law...But that may God forbid! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlating continuance. For He said, 'The heavens and earth will pass away, but not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the Law.'"-Letter of Peter to James 2:3-5

 

"And if our Jesus appeared to you and became known in a vision and met you as angry and an enemy, yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?...But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles, and do not contend with me, whoa m his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church."-Peter(Clementine Homilies 17:19)

 

This is quite a famous debate in the early church. I think the best answer, as you and ydoaPs have demonstrated, is that the Bible contradicts itself on this point.

Perhaps. It could be that 'Luke' once again failed to get his facts straight. It could also be that, at some point, Peter changed his mind. Perhaps Peter responded like that for another reason(he's been known to lie for self preservation such as when he 'denied' Christ).

 

Nice jab. :)

 

The 'law of Moses' is intended for Jews.

 

It is not intended for Gentiles.

 

The conflict is amongst men. Not the bible.

 

Jab? It's a very reasonable explanation. Contrary to the beliefs of some groups, the Bible is not an infallible text. There are contradictions between texts, but then, why shouldn't there be? The differences between texts are just like those between any texts.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Getting back on topic, I present more evidence for my nomination for godhood:

abstraction.png

Edited by ydoaPs
Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be some confusion here.

 

Peter and Paul were men.

Men have conflict. God does not have conflict.

 

Peter was stubborn (like 'rock') and Paul was a brash dude.

 

The conflict went like this:

 

The beginning of Jesus' ministry was directed toward the nation of Israel and after Israel had rejected Jesus, he instructed the disciples to "make disciples of all the nations" Matthew 28:19.

 

Despite this, the early church did not focus on Gentiles.

The ethnic Jews felt that the Gentiles were beneath them, so the services were directed solely to Jews that had accepted Christ.

 

In Acts 10, it was revealed to Peter in a vision that the gospel was to be freely given to the Gentiles.

In that vision, God told Peter that it was permitted for him to enter a Gentile home and freely give the gospel to Gentiles.

 

10He (Peter) became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." 16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

 

Peter was of course an extremely stubborn man, so even God had to tell him three times.

 

It was difficult for Peter to accept because, as a Jew, he was brought up to believe that it was forbidden for him to have close fellowship with a Gentile or even for him to eat a meal in a Gentile's home.

 

In spite of this, Peter obeyed the instructions of God and, subsequently, he entered the home of Cornelius, who was a gentile, and led him and his family to the Lord and Christianity.

 

As I quoted from Acts 15 in my earlier post above, Peter later related his experiences with Cornelius at the council in Jerusalem when the question arose as to whether Gentiles could be saved apart from circumcision and keeping the Law.

 

The Jerusalem Council (along with Peter) agreed that the Gentiles did not need to submit to Jewish customs, would not be required to offer sacrifices, to keep the same Sabbath day or observe Jewish dietary laws, etc.

 

So, by the time of the Jerusalem Council, Peter understood that the Gentiles were to be admitted into the church in the same way that the Jews were admitted.

Which was by faith alone.

 

The earliest Christians, who were ethnic Jews, knew that they could only be saved through faith in Jesus Christ.

However, they did not abandon their heritage and continued to live their lives under 'the law'.

For example, they continued to keep their Sabbath day as in the law of Moses and they continued to observe their Kosher dietary requirements.

 

A similar scenario comes up again in Galatians.

 

For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. Galatians 2:12-13.

 

Jews who were still keeping the Law were inhibited from going into Gentile homes and eating meals that had been prepared by Gentiles.

These meals were not kosher.

The problem came to a head when Peter went to Antioch and saw Paul.

There, Paul also confronted Peter over this issue of the followers of Christ not having fellowship with the Gentile believers (this, after God had already been over it with him).

 

 

The conflict was resolved.

In the process, both groups, the Gentiles and the Jews were made into one.

 

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. Ephesians 2:14-16.

 

Regarding texts that I probably don't have: I'm talkin 'bout the Bible :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
God does not have conflict.

 

Well, it's obvious to me that this is a baseless, meritless, hollow assertion... with absolutely zero empirical and testable evidence in support. You are welcome to believe such things based on your own faith, but stop pretending it is objective fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding texts that I probably don't have: I'm talkin 'bout the Bible :)

 

Except for the fact that the texts I quoted were read as scripture for centuries. Clement was a companion of Peter, so this was well before our current canon was assembled. To get a better idea of what the Bible actually is, you may wan to participate in this thread.

 

You're also ignoring the fact that Jesus is quoted(in our canon as quoted in an above post) as explicitly teaching that the Law is to be followed until the second coming. Peter even quotes a portion of one such saying of Jesus in the section of his letter to James that I provided.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it's obvious to me that this is a baseless, meritless, hollow assertion... with absolutely zero empirical and testable evidence in support. You are welcome to believe such things based on your own faith, but stop pretending it is objective fact.

 

Maybe it is equivalent to rejecting the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it's obvious to me that this is a baseless, meritless, hollow assertion... with absolutely zero empirical and testable evidence in support. You are welcome to believe such things based on your own faith, but stop pretending it is objective fact.

 

1 Thanks for your permission

2 I'm not pretending

3 You need to look up the definition of religion

4 As a devout atheist, you either wish to punish yourself by debating religion or you are simply being antagonistic. Which one is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, this is a religion forum, and we will discuss religion, but we are still following the rules of conduct. Drop the attitude, everyone. Please.

 

Everyone can make their points in a civil manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys, this is a religion forum, and we will discuss religion, but we are still following the rules of conduct. Drop the attitude, everyone. Please.

 

I don't wanna! :P

 

 

/me hides from teh moo wrath

Link to post
Share on other sites
Except for the fact that the texts I quoted were read as scripture for centuries. Clement was a companion of Peter, so this was well before our current canon was assembled. To get a better idea of what the Bible actually is, you may wan to participate in this thread.

While I respect the authors opinion, I view that post are speculation.

 

 

You're also ignoring the fact that Jesus is quoted(in our canon as quoted in an above post) as explicitly teaching that the Law is to be followed until the second coming. Peter even quotes a portion of one such saying of Jesus in the section of his letter to James that I provided.

 

By picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe or discount and substituting other texts, you are modifying it to fit your own worldly views. Basically making up your own religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
While I respect the authors opinion, I view that post are speculation.
Why, exactly?

 

By picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe or discount and substituting other texts, you are modifying it to fit your own worldly views. Basically making up your own religion.

 

No, not at all. I'm including texts that were already in it before it was set. I'm including texts written by people who were there. I'm using texts in the current canon.

 

Who said I'm picking and choosing? I'm simply treating it like any other historical source.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe or discount and substituting other texts, you are modifying it to fit your own worldly views. Basically making up your own religion.

Seeing as the bible is self contradictory right from the creation stories, I am not sure there's any way not to pick and choose what parts of the bible to believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.