Christian questions

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-29 05:36pm

creationistalltheay wrote:
That doesn't work. Especially considering the contradictions. Oh and how do you interpret pi to equal 3 in the Bible but not in reality?
Thats for a different thread, but I"d like to be shown where in the Bible it claims pi equals 3 (I believe I know what you are reffering to)

1 Kings 7:23. And what thread is it for?

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-29 05:37pm

Throws the whole literal Bible notion out the window then

Subject to interpretation does not mean it is illiteral. MY history book is also subject to interpretation, as long as words can have more then one meaning.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-29 05:38pm

1 Kings 7:23. And what thread is it for?

I mean this doesn't apply to the original questions asked to Apologist. I'll check out the verse, btw

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-29 05:41pm

There are many explanations to it, but one is at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/494.asp

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-29 05:51pm

creationistalltheay wrote:There are many explanations to it, but one is at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/494.asp

1. Even rounding to the nearest full cubit, it would still be 31 cubits, not 30

2. But why would god measure the distance across at the top and the distance around in the middle? It makes no damned sense.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-29 05:52pm

creationistalltheay wrote:
Throws the whole literal Bible notion out the window then
Subject to interpretation does not mean it is illiteral. MY history book is also subject to interpretation, as long as words can have more then one meaning.

The intepretation of a history book is what the events mean in history or whether they were good or bad, etc. Not what happened.

Gricksigger · Post by **Gricksigger** » 2002-11-29 05:56pm

Hehehe.

That's nice. Do you feel like you are on trial for being a Christian?

No. I never said I was. I never insinuated that I was. You're just assuming.

You still haven't answered my question.

I'm not a Catholic. It's not meant to be a funny hat. This is like me asking you why (because he was an atheist, like you are).

Love? Excuse me, but I would hardly call someone who sends his own son out to die "loving."

Sure it is, especially when the son is the same as the father, just in different persons. If I

I would hardly call someone who violates every single commandment He has put forth moral.

Examples, please. Some commandments are not applicable to God, by the way. And why, you ask? Because he's God, he's perfect, he's morally good, he cannot sin, he cannot lie, etc.

And what is this about God not changing his nature? If God was perfectly good, or unable to change his nature, then how the 1234 could he repent of his actions?

God's immutability is pretty well-known. You only expose your ignorance of Christian doctrine by this comment. Malachi 3:6 says "I the Lord do not change." And he did not repent of his actions. Ever heard of figurative language? It's hard to describe God; therefore, some anthropomorphization is almost unavoidable.

Why does he sometimes need to ask the advice of humans?

He doesn't have to ask the advice of humans: he's omnipotent.

Further, since you admit that God is not the source of morality, and you contend that God has free will, then you admit that God is able to perform immoral acts and even skimming the bible will reveal hundreds of them.

Is one's nature part of one? And if by "free will" you mean "completely free will" (that is, the ability to do ALL things without exception) then I must say that usch an idea is impossible. For example, if you had "completely free will" and willed a square circle, what would happen? God's omnipotence does not include the ability to do...: 1. things that are logically impossible (i.e., square circles, world with free will in which evil could never occur), 2. things that are against his nature (i.e., lying, sinning).

I'd like to hear some of these "immoral acts" that God performed.

You call worshipping a mass murderer morally correct?!

Murderer? Murder is defined by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." Show how God did that.

Why is fellowship important?

It is important because it's expressing God's love, mercy, etc. to fellow believers.

Is it really more important to God that you worship him than that you help the poor?

Of course. Worshipping God is the first and foremost function we have. However, to make a distinction between worshipping God and helping the poor is false. Helping the poor is a way to worship God.

Really? I've got news for you - your God has been hitting the 'shrooms pretty hard lately. And you are an enabling codependant.

Wow. I wasn't aware of that.

By the way, the Bible uses round numbers. That doesn't make it errant. It's just easier and was simply the way to write numbers in "olden days." Eh?

Gricksigger · Post by **Gricksigger** » 2002-11-29 05:57pm

By the way, I'd like to be labeled "Fundamentalist moron" as well.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-11-29 06:01pm

neoolong wrote: The intepretation of a history book is what the events mean in history or whether they were good or bad, etc. Not what happened.

Unless you're questioning the intentions of who wrote the book...
but that'd be blasphemy, wouldn't it?

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-29 06:02pm

The intepretation of a history book is what the events mean in history or whether they were good or bad, etc. Not what happened.

I thought that was what was being adressed. The Apologist (or maybe it was gricksigger, one of them) stated Christians should not be Christian soley for the gain-loss motive.That isn't what happened, its whether its good or bad.

Gricksigger · Post by **Gricksigger** » 2002-11-29 06:04pm

Of course they had different intentions. When Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, his intentions were different from David's when he wrote some poems in the book of Psalms. What matters is that all books in the Bible were written by authors when they were filled with the Holy Spirit that made their work inded the Word of God, inerrant, infallible, etc.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-29 06:08pm

. But why would god measure the distance across at the top and the distance around in the middle? It makes no damned sense.

do you know how tricky it would be to stick your hand low into an object like that and measure from inside it? It seems to me the top would be simplest measured by diameter by laying a measurement device on the top, and to find the circumference of the middle, one would measure the outside.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-29 06:08pm

innerbrat wrote:
neoolong wrote: The intepretation of a history book is what the events mean in history or whether they were good or bad, etc. Not what happened.
Unless you're questioning the intentions of who wrote the book...
but that'd be blasphemy, wouldn't it?

Only if you believe in a petty genocidal egomaniacal little fucker who thinks he should get whatever he wants but is too fucked in the head to do it right.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-29 06:08pm

creationistalltheay wrote:
The intepretation of a history book is what the events mean in history or whether they were good or bad, etc. Not what happened.
I thought that was what was being adressed. The Apologist (or maybe it was gricksigger, one of them) stated Christians should not be Christian soley for the gain-loss motive.That isn't what happened, its whether its good or bad.

It still prevents it from being all true.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-29 06:11pm

It still prevents it from being all true.

People have been trying to ponder the meaning of Shakespeare, for a while. Many have different opinions.

Does that mean Shakespeare, was not definite in his intentions when he wrote his plays?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-29 06:11pm

Examples, please. Some commandments are not applicable to God, by the way. And why, you ask? Because he's God, he's perfect, he's morally good, he cannot sin, he cannot lie, etc.

You honestly believe it was morally good for him to flood the Earth and drown thens of thousands of innocent babies??

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-29 06:11pm

Gricksigger wrote:Of course they had different intentions. When Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, his intentions were different from David's when he wrote some poems in the book of Psalms. What matters is that all books in the Bible were written by authors when they were filled with the Holy Spirit that made their work inded the Word of God, inerrant, infallible, etc.

The Bible is still factually wrong. And if it was God then the intent is the same, to spread the correct word of God. And damn God is not inerrant, infallible, etc. when he fucked that up. Read the fucking post: pi does not equal three. It did no spread the inerrant word of God when he would have fucking failed intro to geometry.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-29 06:13pm

creationistalltheay wrote:
It still prevents it from being all true.
People have been trying to ponder the meaning of Shakespeare, for a while. Many have different opinions.

Does that mean Shakespeare, was not definite in his intentions when he wrote his plays?

The events, according to the play are still what happened, in that "universe." The meaning is the only thing open to interpretation, not the actual events in the story. Get a clue dumbass.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-29 06:16pm

The meaning is the only thing open to interpretation, not the actual events in the story. Get a clue dumbass.

We are talking about the meaning. Catholics versus Protestants both believe the same events happened, but they take different meaning from it.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-29 06:22pm

Going to LA for the weekend, I'll be back Sunday.

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-11-29 06:26pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Examples, please. Some commandments are not applicable to God, by the way. And why, you ask? Because he's God, he's perfect, he's morally good, he cannot sin, he cannot lie, etc.
You honestly believe it was morally good for him to flood the Earth and drown thens of thousands of innocent babies??

I've been gone for too long. Morally good? As God's creation, I don't see how you can attempt to judge the judge.This argument is becoming very old, when it comes to God's judgement.Portraying God as some mere being will not work in this type of argument.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-29 06:33pm

creationistalltheay wrote:
The meaning is the only thing open to interpretation, not the actual events in the story. Get a clue dumbass.
We are talking about the meaning. Catholics versus Protestants both believe the same events happened, but they take different meaning from it.

Still doesn't make it true.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-29 06:37pm

Priesto wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Examples, please. Some commandments are not applicable to God, by the way. And why, you ask? Because he's God, he's perfect, he's morally good, he cannot sin, he cannot lie, etc.
You honestly believe it was morally good for him to flood the Earth and drown thens of thousands of innocent babies??

I've been gone for too long. Morally good? As God's creation, I don't see how you can attempt to judge the judge.This argument is becoming very old, when it comes to God's judgement.Portraying God as some mere being will not work in this type of argument.

So God is above reproach and can do anything he wants because he created something. Right. That makes so much sense.

I guess that when I have a kid, since I created him, I am justified in beating him and killing him.

Damn you are a moron.

God is not some omnipotent being. If he wants to set up morality then he does so with himself under it.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2002-11-29 06:41pm

Priesto wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Examples, please. Some commandments are not applicable to God, by the way. And why, you ask? Because he's God, he's perfect, he's morally good, he cannot sin, he cannot lie, etc.
You honestly believe it was morally good for him to flood the Earth and drown thens of thousands of innocent babies??

I've been gone for too long. Morally good? As God's creation, I don't see how you can attempt to judge the judge.This argument is becoming very old, when it comes to God's judgement.Portraying God as some mere being will not work in this type of argument.

Not long enough...

This argument is old merely because you fundies simply have no answer to it. Judges down here are subject to the same laws that they arbitrate, the last time I checked. Those who don't obey the law are dismissed.

Ummm...with regards to your last sentence...God is NOT a being??? Then what is He? A brain-bug in the brains of the ignorant masses? Hmm...I'm beginning to get your meaning.

KG

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-29 06:52pm

A fuckwit wrote:No. I never said I was. I never insinuated that I was. You're just assuming.

Then why do you feel it nessecary to justify your actions? Why do you feel it nessecary to apoligize? Could it be, that you know that you are wrong?

A fuckwit wrote:I'm not a Catholic. It's not meant to be a funny hat. This is like me asking you why (because he was an atheist, like you are).

Except that unlike you I don't dodge the fucking question by telling you I'm an atheist.

A fuckwit wrote:Sure it is, especially when the son is the same as the father, just in different persons. If I

If you what? If you delete the last half of your sentence to make it look like you had a point when you don't?

A fuckwit wrote:Examples, please. Some commandments are not applicable to God, by the way. And why, you ask? Because he's God, he's perfect, he's morally good, he cannot sin, he cannot lie, etc.

Gen. 20:13 - "Thou shalt not kill." Do you want a list of every murder comitted by God in the bible, or will you accept that wiping out the whole human race in a stupid flood qualifies as several million violations of said commandment?

A fuckwit wrote:God's immutability is pretty well-known. You only expose your ignorance of Christian doctrine by this comment. Malachi 3:6 says "I the Lord do not change." And he did not repent of his actions. Ever heard of figurative language? It's hard to describe God; therefore, some anthropomorphization is almost unavoidable.

Really? So all of the examples in the link I gave you were anthromorhphizations and God did not actually regret his actions? Just more proof that God is delusional. He believes that he does not change, even when in Gen. 18, not only does God change his mind, but he does so in response to the pleadings of a man. He believes he does not ghange, yet we clearly see that his instructions in the New testament differ from his instructions in the old. He believes he does not change, yet he can't even decide how many days the great flood was supposed to have lasted. And you trust the word of an obviously delusional God?

A fuckwit wrote:He doesn't have to ask the advice of humans: he's omnipotent.

Gen. 18, Gen. 18.

A fuckwit wrote:Is one's nature part of one? And if by "free will" you mean "completely free will" (that is, the ability to do ALL things without exception) then I must say that usch an idea is impossible. For example, if you had "completely free will" and willed a square circle, what would happen? God's omnipotence does not include the ability to do...: 1. things that are logically impossible (i.e., square circles, world with free will in which evil could never occur), 2. things that are against his nature (i.e., lying, sinning).

I'd like to hear some of these "immoral acts" that God performed.

If God cannot do things that are logically impossible, that is a reasonable limitation. But I have heard it argued that since there is evil in the world, it was not because God condones evil but gave us free will to do as we choose. Now when asked about why He could not simply probvide proof (beyond an apocryphal and self-contradictory 2000 y.o. book) of his existence if he's going to punish us for not believing in him, it is responded that God had to give us the "choice" not to follow him, or else we would not have free will. So, obviously, if we cannot not follow god, we would be perfectly good beings (by biblical definition), but would not have free will. So now you must choose:

1. God has free will, but cannot not follow his own nature, which means that giving people free will is not an excuse for creating them in such a manner that they would commit evil acts, and by doing this, God is guilty of sin by complacence.

2. God does not have free will.

A fuckwit wrote:Murderer? Murder is defined by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." Show how God did that.

Ah. So the lawful killing of one human by another isn't murder. In that case, nazis were not murderers because the law in Germany allowed for Jews to be killed for being Jewish. While technically true, this does not by any means make their actions morally justifiable. Oh BTW, since you haven't answered all my other accusations about God's actions, I'll assume you agree. Concession accepted.

A fuckwit wrote:It is important because it's expressing God's love, mercy, etc. to fellow believers.

As you should know by now, God has no mercy. He will ruthlessly slaughter thousands or even millions of people for the sole crime of not worshipping him. He will not forgive anyone unless someone's blood is spilled - even you admit that. No. This is not mercy, this is evil.

A fuckwit wrote:Of course. Worshipping God is the first and foremost function we have. However, to make a distinction between worshipping God and helping the poor is false. Helping the poor is a way to worship God.

If that's true, then why does God need people to build churches? Besides, do you not know that the bible explicitly states in Rom. 3:20 that By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight? God doesn't care whether you do good works or not, and he explicity seperates worship from doing good things.

A fuckwit wrote:Wow. I wasn't aware of that.

By the way, the Bible uses round numbers. That doesn't make it errant. It's just easier and was simply the way to write numbers in "olden days." Eh?

Really? Why can't God use square numbers? Or numbers 3.14?