Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Defining a True One


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#46 CarolinaCoolin

CarolinaCoolin

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,299 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:37 AM

If my dad were an omnipotent supernatural being, my first question would be, "How did you screw things up so badly on earth dad? I thought you were perfect. How can such a perfect being, create such an imperfect world and not see it coming from a universe away?"

Then I would recommend dad own up to his own mistakes, be a man, and fix them himself.

Being omnipotent, he really wouldn't need my help or anyone else's for that matter, would he?


God did. He did become a man (Jesus) and fix them himself. God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all God.

#47 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,668 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:39 AM

Matthias, for simplicity's sake here, let's step back. We're tackling too wide a range for the conversation to have any real direction or meaning. Let's start from scratch. Define your god. Lay down the frame work from which you will be basing everything. It's much easier that way, because I'm sensing a barrier that is being caused by a lack of understanding on how the bible is to be read for the sake of your argument.


pstall, I'm going to assume you were referring (at least partially) to me. What? I honestly have no idea what you're saying other than "don't take it literally". When it comes to how we're supposed to read the book that is supposedly the divine inspiration of a god, I don't see how it can be read any other way. Did a god not write it, according to doctrine? If so, then you would think that his word is good for what it is.

Me personally, I think it's a book written by men for the governance of other people. And history supports that. Most of the big parts and stories in the bible are taken from earlier religions, laws, and cultures. Biblical scholars (people who know far more of the subject than you or I) have reached this conclusion. I don't believe it to be divinely inspired or accurate at all (with the exception of the sieges in Kings). So, that is where I sit on it. As far as this thread goes, I am merely responding to the claims made. It got convoluted, but hopefully from here we can get it focused and moving in a direction worthwhile. At the end of the day, if you don't like the thread, then get out. It's entirely voluntary to be in here. Like you said, why bother? In fact, why bother typing a post complaining about how you shouldn't bother?



#48 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,365 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:40 AM

There is no scientific proof of love. Do you guys redicule people who claim to be in love?

Or if you happen to be in love, do you feel uninformed or not intellegent for believing you are in love?

Love also can create sorrow or violence. Do we condemn all love and those who believe in it for every murder committed in its name?

#49 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,668 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:49 AM

God did. He did become a man (Jesus) and fix them himself. God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all God.

 

Again, I'll rehash how this works. God of the bible created a system that didn't work from the start due to conditions that he put in place with foresight in mind that it WOULDN'T work (he is omniscient, right?). Then, when it didn't work, he killed everybody except one family. Then temporarily allowed incest in order to populate the world (for the second time at this point), then forbade it again. The system never changed, and things continued to suck. So, in order to create a loophole to get around the rules that he created because they didn't work, he sent himself to earth in the form of Jesus in order to ultimately get flogged and crucified and die in order to fulfill the need for blood sacrifice which he put in place. Essentially, he sacrificed himself to himself in order to pay for the condition (sin) that he created.

Once more, all he had to do was come back down and say "hey, uh, guys. Listen up. It's me, god. So, you know how I said you were all sinners and how blood was to be spilled for pretty much everything? Yeah, you don't have to do that. Listen, just be cool. Be awesome to each other. Ask for forgiveness and truly mean it and that's all you gotta do to make me happy. I kinda caused this whole big deal anyway".

If I, a mortal with admittedly limited intelligence, can come up with a better solution that would leave NO doubt in any person's mind whatsoever so that there is absolutely no confusion between any two people, then why couldn't a god? Maybe, just maybe, because a god didn't write it and the writer's realized "hey, this blood sacrifice thing is getting outta hand. We need to revise this so people have a bit more hope and so we can keep animals and virgins and people guilty of adultery and other crimes alive". They came up with a story, put it on paper, and voila. There you have it. That seems like a likely outcome. No, I do not know this as fact, but I do think it is pretty likely.



#50 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,668 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:01 AM

There is no scientific proof of love. Do you guys redicule people who claim to be in love?

Or if you happen to be in love, do you feel uninformed or not intellegent for believing you are in love?

Love also can create sorrow or violence. Do we condemn all love and those who believe in it for every murder committed in its name?

 

Actually, there is. We know what the brain is doing when the feeling of love is taking place. We know the specific brain activity. Love is a human condition that is involuntary, so no, I do not feel uninformed or unintelligent for believing when I am in love.

Your last sentence is just question begging and a hasty generalization. You'd have to assume all love DOES necessarily create sorrow or violence in order for that to work.. Nice try, though.



#51 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,335 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:22 AM

God did. He did become a man (Jesus) and fix them himself. God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all God.

Hopefully this makes it clear.

520px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-Englis



#52 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,632 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:23 AM

OK, to your first point: what? That's honestly all I know to say to that.

To the second (bringing a sword..): evidence to support that interpretation? Because Matthew 10 offers no such context (and that is where that verse appears). He goes on immediately after that verse to elaborate on that and explain that he came to "turn a man against his father, daughter against mother...a man's enemies will be the members of his own household". And then, after that, he FURTHERS his own context by saying “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Basically, Jesus, over the course of several verses in Matthew 10, affirms what I said: that Jesus came to not bring peace, but conflict (the sword). There is no hint on parable here. In case you're uncertain, Matthew 10 is Jesus sending the 12 disciples out to witness to the Jews.


So, if Jesus is god, and god is Jesus (hello, holy trinity), then Jesus, aka god, in all of his supposed omniscience and omnipotence, was swayed by a mortal non-Jew to, you know, not be a dick to non-Jews? How does that even make sense?

That doesn't address his truly bad advice of not saving for tomorrow or the others. You can twist it how you want, he expressly states "give all you have to the poor". He wanted his followers to reject worldly things, sure. But he REALLY wants that. Don't work for food. Don't save money. Don't plan for the future. And does ANYBODY listen to Jesus on this? HELL no they don't. Why? Because it isn't practical. At all. And due to that, people like to say (just as with the bible's condoning of slavery), "it was a different time, so god set different rules and expectations", which makes no sense, again, because a perfect being doesn't change his mind. To change your mind is to admit error, and a perfect being is without error.

There are no verses that indicate that the crucifixion also nullified the Jewish laws in the Old Testament. None. Jesus himself said, also in Matthew, that he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it (fulfill the blood sacrifice requirement for all sin forever, which is also silly, considering Jesus is god's human form. All god had to do was say, "hey, guys, new rule, you don't have to sacrifice blood and flesh for sin anymore. Yeah, just like, pray about it and it's all good".). He goes on to say, "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." So, there you have it. Straight from the horse's mouth. If there is anything that contradicts that, well, I guess at that point we can chalk it up to yet another contradiction of the bible and more reason to call BS.


dude: say more, type less. I'm posting from a mobile device so I'm not hitting all your points.
My first point was that Heaven was created for the descendants of Abraham, not the gentiles, not the pagans, not the egyptians, not the romans, but for the blood descendants of Abraham.

As for no scripture supporting that the law of Moses was nullified, read Hebrews 8 and let me know how you interpret it.

I think you should read the first half of Matthew
10 before cherry picking verses out of context. I should have read it before I replied, as I was thinking about Paul's later writings. Someone else already said it, but I'll reiterate: those were the instructions to the twelve disciples as they set out to spread this message.

#53 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,335 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:29 AM

There is no scientific proof of love. Do you guys redicule people who claim to be in love?

Or if you happen to be in love, do you feel uninformed or not intellegent for believing you are in love?

Love also can create sorrow or violence. Do we condemn all love and those who believe in it for every murder committed in its name?

 

The molecule Oxytocin plays a significant role in what humans call love.

 

 

Often referred to as the "love molecule", oxytocin is typically associated with helping couples establish a greater sense of intimacy and attachment. Oxytocin, along with dopamine and norepinephrine, are believed to be highly critical in human pair-bonding. But not only that, it also increases the desire for couples to gaze at one another, it creates sexual arousal...

http://discovermagaz...03/may/featlove



#54 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,668 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:47 AM

dude: say more, type less. I'm posting from a mobile device so I'm not hitting all your points.
My first point was that Heaven was created for the descendants of Abraham, not the gentiles, not the pagans, not the egyptians, not the romans, but for the blood descendants of Abraham.

As for no scripture supporting that the law of Moses was nullified, read Hebrews 8 and let me know how you interpret it.

I think you should read the first half of Matthew
10 before cherry picking verses out of context. I should have read it before I replied, as I was thinking about Paul's later writings. Someone else already said it, but I'll reiterate: those were the instructions to the twelve disciples as they set out to spread this message.

 

I'm sorry if you can't follow what I'm saying. I make sure that what I am saying is getting across clearly.

Hebrews 8 is in direct conflict with what Jesus said about not a jot nor tittle of the law shall be changed. You've done nothing here.

I didn't take Matthew 10 out of context at all. No amount of reading the first half of Matthew (which I have) helps you make your case about Jesus not expressly stating that he came to bring division between people. Again, he even states, "if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of me". That sounds like an abusive spouse to me. Provide me the context of how it ISN'T saying what it clearly says.



#55 CarolinaCoolin

CarolinaCoolin

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,299 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:51 AM

Hopefully this makes it clear.
520px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-Englis


I can find a picture that's wrong on a subject I know nothing about to. Hope that clears things up

#56 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,335 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:56 AM

I can find a picture that's wrong on a subject I know nothing about to. Hope that clears things up

 

You explain it then.  I was taught about the Trinity when I was in elementary school. 

 

The Pope will also be surprised that the Trinity is wrong, you know that guy don't you?  

 

The leader of the largest Christian church in the world.



#57 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,365 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:07 AM

The molecule Oxytocin plays a significant role in what humans call love.

 

Oxytocin is released for several different things including eating certain foods.  It is also released when crying.  The biggest release of Oxycotin is when in labor.  It will also be released due to masturbation.

 

  It is not proof of love.



#58 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,365 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:13 AM

Actually, there is. We know what the brain is doing when the feeling of love is taking place. We know the specific brain activity. Love is a human condition that is involuntary, so no, I do not feel uninformed or unintelligent for believing when I am in love.

Your last sentence is just question begging and a hasty generalization. You'd have to assume all love DOES necessarily create sorrow or violence in order for that to work.. Nice try, though.

 

the same brain activity will happen when eating chocolate or the Panthers winning or hanging with your buddies.

 

There is no scientific proof that love exists between two people.

 

The last sentence was drawing the equivalency of people doing bad things in the name of a religion and doing bad things in the name love.  People condemn religion for evil people doing things in the name of something that doesn't exist, why should you not hold evil people doing things in the name of a fictional love to the same standards? 



#59 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,335 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:25 AM

Oxytocin is released for several different things including eating certain foods.  It is also released when crying.  The biggest release of Oxycotin is when in labor.  It will also be released due to masturbation.

 

  It is not proof of love.

 

It has been found to play a role in human attraction to other humans along with several other chemicals in the body.  Agreed Oxytocin plays numerous roles in the body's function, but that doesn't lessen the research showing its impact on human monogamy.   

 

It turns out that love truly is a chemical reaction. Researchers using MRIs to look at the brain activity of the smitten have found that an interplay of ­hormones and neurotransmitters create the state we call love. Four compounds—dopamine, norepinephrine, oxytocin, and serotonin—are likely to be particularly critical, says Helen Fisher, research professor of anthropology at Rutgers University and author of Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. Although the way various chemicals interact in the brain is complex and still largely unknown, data suggests that each plays a different role.

http://www.parade.co...cience-of-love/



#60 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,535 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:19 AM

Let's calm down guys.  I want to have some critical discussion, but let's do it respectfully.  My fellow christians, don't be so on edge with some of the things said

 

 

Matthias, for simplicity's sake here, let's step back. We're tackling too wide a range for the conversation to have any real direction or meaning. Let's start from scratch. Define your god. Lay down the frame work from which you will be basing everything. It's much easier that way, because I'm sensing a barrier that is being caused by a lack of understanding on how the bible is to be read for the sake of your argument.

 

 

 

I think it might be better if you told me what you believe concerning Christianity, and we can start off with and stick to one particularly subject.  Are you a former chrisitan? (I know you and PhillyB mentioned the no true scotsman fallacy, but I've said there different cultural aspects in christians around the world.  We may take things differently, but there are still some universal things that identify us as christian.  Just like there are different fields of science, there are still universal characteristics that makes a person a scientist)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com