Support NeoGAF

[TGateKeeper]

That's not what I'm saying. Quirinius was in power of some sort when herod was in power (or else he wouldn't have been governor a few years later). The research is in finding out what he was. The things we know are what is obvious so no one's disputing that. The reason there is a debate is in regards to purely Quirinius position of power during Herod's rule. On the surface, it appears pretty clearly this is a chronology error, however, research into some [boring] history books reveals the possibility that it's not an error at all.

Further i didn't say that he was co-governor, but that it's a possiblity which you can't possibly know unless you have a doctorate in Syrian history- of which case this wouldn't be up for debate. There's is definitely debate about him and certainly nothing absolute regarding Syrian rule at the time of Jesus' birth.

I'll try to locate what I found though. there were basically five different possiblities including admittedly the idea that Cyrenius/Quirinius was nowhere to be found. One of the links was Wikipedia. It wouldn't list a governor during that time.

The fact that Luke even mentioned that detail when there was no reason is evidence of the research he did at a time he was closer to the history (Which could have been as simple as going off memory).

What are you talking about? We know that Quirinius was governor of syria in 6CE, there are written records of all the governors of syria going past the time of Herod the great. We also have Quirinius history as to his early years before he became governor of syria.




At the time of herod the great we know from historical record Quirinius was not the governor of syria. We know that the census luke speaks of did not happen during the time of Herod the great or his son because at that time judea was not part of the roman empire hence the reason herod was a client king. We know that judea came under full roman control in 6CE and this was when they now had to pay taxes directly to roman(census) also base on historical doc Quirinius was made governor of syria. If this all happened in 6CE and this is lukes explanation for why joseph went back to judea expalin why matthew said this happened during the time of herod the great when herod the great died in 4 BCE.


Please show me with facts, not if's and's but's and maybe's..
Maybe you have an answer that no one else has.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

What I wonder about is how can theists be sure God is still "there" and or even cares that anyone believe anymore.
The Bible is really old and though it showed God interacted with people all the time (spoke to people in an audible voice, even appeared in various physical forms etc.). For a while now it seems there hasn't been any official follow ups on the adventures of God. Why is that? Why do these myth like major events not happen anymore?

Basically if God stopped caring, would he tell us? If he wouldn't tell us how could we tell the difference?

Problem with that, the stories in the bible aren't literal. Exodus didn't happen and so forth. God never really came and interacted with man.

Edit: Well, unless you think of God as God/Jesus, then we're supposed to meet up with our pal Jesus when he comes back and we all die.

 

[TaeOH]

I don't know how to say this without being at least somewhat offensive, but as an atheist just wandering into this thread to see what the conversation is about, seeing this makes me really uncomfortable. It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable because it questions my world-view, it makes me uncomfortable because it makes me feel like people of faith are mentally unhinged and not based in reality. Just the way some people can say "God created everything" with certainty, it's crazy and makes me feel like they're fundamentally flawed on a deep level or else have been brain-washed.

This has been a recurring problem for me when discussing religion with people of faith, people will often take my reluctance as insecurity, but really I'm uncomfortable because I honestly think you're crazy. I just want to shake you by the shoulders and yell "Listen to what you're saying!!!"

I just don't think it's in me to understand faith.

Doing some research on your own into philosophy and epistemology could clear some of this up for you. It could also just further confuse you.

 

[TaeOH]

What I wonder about is how can theists be sure God is still "there" and or even cares that anyone believe anymore.
The Bible is really old and though it showed God interacted with people all the time (spoke to people in an audible voice, even appeared in various physical forms etc.). For a while now it seems there hasn't been any official follow ups on the adventures of God. Why is that? Why do these myth like major events not happen anymore?

Basically if God stopped caring, would he tell us? If he wouldn't tell us how could we tell the difference?

Christ's coming changed the way God interacts with the world. More specifically the gift of the Holy Spirit changed how we as humans have a relationship with God.

Plus it is not like everyone in the old testament got to talk to God, it was actually very few.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Sure it is. However, whether you believe that or not is a different matter. For example, creation itself is evidence of a creator. It is not just stuff and it's not just molecular arrangement. The things life possible are impossible without assistance. Nothing science has actually shown (Rather than assumed) shows anything otherwise.

I can see a couple of problems with this initial statement. You use specific words that set up the premise that you're arguing for. "Creation itself is evidence of a creator" is a logical statement, yet how did you determine that it was creation and not 'formation of life naturally'? You use logical fallacies in your argument, such as an 'Argument from Personal Incredulity' (in relation to saying life is not possible without assistance), as well as confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable (usually refereed to as God of the Gaps). Simply stating something could not be possible without 'intervention' is not a logical argument.

There has never been evidence of a shift between animals. For example, a fish has never been proven to be anything other than a fish. I do believe in speciation within kinds and I know those are verifiable, but that's a much different thing than how people deduce most life forms came into existence. I believe those Darwin bumper stickers explain it nicely. Well, I don't believe that.

This statement seems to indicate that you're not entirely sure about the theory of evolution (which is ok, I'm not an expert either). The term species is certainly an ill-defined word, though it typically describes a certain organisms' ability to breed with another organism (there are caveats to this definition), which would make them a member of the same species. You also have to take into account the fact that Species, Genus, Phylum etc are all man made definitions and that evolution does not abide by these criteria. There are no specific 'intermediate fossils' because everything is related on the 'branches' of evolution. So if you're expecting a fish to suddenly evolve into a mammal, you won't see that because that isn't how evolution works. I can show you evidence though of the Reptile-Mammal evolution or the 'Ape' to 'Man' evidence...

I'm not offended, but honestly I never understand where people get the idea that we don't know it isn't true. It's as true as the idea of how life started without him so we both are guilty of logical fallacies. There is no proof in what I don't believe in. I don't dismiss anything. I simply choose between the two most logical options and abiogenesis is far from logical except on the basis of NEVER considering God in the equation. I get that science needs that but life is more than science experiments and it's not able to prove a lot of things we know to be true.

I never said that Abiogensis was true, and I would never take the position that it is until it is proven. This is where the fundamental disconnect comes from, you have chosen a position and will assert that it is the most logical until proven otherwise. This is clearly a logical fallacy, and until you change this line of reasoning, in all matters of logical/reasoned discourse, your premise is illogical. I'm not simply stating this, this is an application of formal logic. I could also explain the concept of 'Burden of proof', but I'm sure you're already familiar with the notion.

Well, God not existing would be the biggest conspiracy. Nearly all of the writers of the Bible claim to hhave spoken directly with God. They received signs, prophecies, or outright miracles from God. All scripture is supposed to be inspired of God meaning that the entire Bible's authorship is based on Godly standards even if written by men. Basically, 40 writers over 1,500 years (Even the worst skeptic on the planet would have to admit the Bible was written over at least a few hundred years, still no small feat) would have all had to conspire to create something that was phony fron the get-go. There has NEVER been a conspiracy that big EVER.

Add to that the millions of people who didn't write the Bible who were affected by it. Not a hint of dispute, no real disagreement, & no real hint of a conspiracy theory...until centuries later.

I use the word conspiracy because that's exactly what it would need to be when skeptics shrug off portions of the Bible as phony just because. That's a tough thing to pull off and it proves to me that they really aren't as intelligent as they like to think they are at least in terms of the Bible. Keeep in mind that this is not an argument concerning I believe the Bible because the Bible says so. This is about fitness and consistency of text and there has never been a book written that does as well as the Bible- fiction or not.

I'm certainly not an expert on the veracity of the Bible, but as I'm studying Greek and Roman history I have come to appreciate the bias and agenda of historical authors. I have also been made aware of some contradictions between the texts so I would not claim that there are zero contradictions, it just seems like it's a fairly well put together text. Even if there was no contradictions it would not be evidence of divinity, I know you didn't say that, I'm just reiterating a point.

There is no way to do it. Again, it's impossible. There's no reason for me to change my view on it. Of course if you're saying they will just sit back and let nature takes it's course, there's no question I would be impressed by that since the impossible happened.

However, they have to start with the building blocks and then figure out ways to create a variety of life from that all while letting nature take care of it (I'm even willing to see if they could speed up the process). If they can do that, then my faith may be shaken a bit. But again, it's impossible so I'm not particularly worried.

It is a very bold claim to say that Abiogenisis is impossible, but from reading your response you aren't entirely sure what is actually entails. Scientists aren't splicing different organic components together by hand, they aren't even starting with organic components, the organic amino acids are forming from inorganic chemicals when under certain atmospheric conditions.

I will say again that even if I'm wrong about Christianity (I'm not but theoretically), this still would never change my view that a creator is the most logical choice between that and nothing.

Another couple of logical fallacies, you use a false dichotomy (saying there are only two choices) and a strawman (Creator or 'Nothing').

We inherited sin- sort of by adaptation. If Adam and Eve had kids prior to sinning, they would have been perfect kids. They didn't so we are born in the image of our parents. Sin is a justice standard. because it would not be fair or healthy for an imperfect person to live forever alongside a perfect person, the standard is imperfection = death.

As a greedy banker, I look at things in financial terms. It's the difference between renting and owning. Because we don't measure up, a sacrifice/payment must be given to God in order to cover over the sin. The Jews had animal sacrifices but they were good for a limited time. There was no point in sacrificing humans since they could cover the debt either. We would have been paying rent for our sins forever with billions of more animals slaughtered

All of that to say that, basically, only a perfect man could replace what was lost (BTW, if Jesus were God, this sacrifice would be overkill. Ditto if he stayed an angel which is why he was a man.). Jesus "purchased" our sins by basically making it possible for us to be perfect again.

So we are inheriting the 'sin' of our ancestors, which means a baby is born a sinner though it has not yet even committed what the bible would class as a sin? It is such an 'unjust' concept looking from the outside. Say my Great Grandfather committed murder, I did not condone the act, in fact I wasn't even born yet and was in no way responsible for his actions. It is then like I have to pay reparations to the victims family just because my ancestor committed a crime/sin...How is that fair? Then to top of, some guy claiming to be the son of God says that he will sacrifice himself to absolve me of the crimes I didn't commit... It really is hard for me to wrap my head around. Could you please explain it differently, I currently don't understand.

It really isn't. It's not a case of me closing my ears to something I don't want to believe. It simply is not a teaching. There has always been a teaching of eternal torment in other religions ) and after a particular time after 1st century, but not Biblically. Admittedly, some Jews may have believed in it too which kind of explains Jesus parable about Lazurus.

My personal opinion is that it's a traditional teaching and people have a hard time letting it go. To me they should because most believers don't actually believe it (By their deeds at least) and it is simply not in keeping with the warning God has consistently given. Something as sever as ETERNAL TORMENT would need to be stated incessanrtly across several books in both the OT and NT. There is simply no way in my mind it exists and there's a lot more reasons than what I've stated.

Everyone that dies goes to the same place. The difference is what happens afterward. Non-believers would simply stay dead which was their intention all along. There's no reason to go anywhere else. As for believers, I've stated, this is the part that I'm most unfamiliar with because the Bible definitely mentions 2 outcomes - heaven or earth with the OT focusing on Earth & the NT focusing on heaven & Revelation kind of including both. I don't get it. There are some relgions who have cracked the code supposedly, but I'm still researching where I would be. I tend not to think about it too much though because I'll be fine in either case.

Interesting. This view is remarkably easier to have no qualms with than the view of eternal torment. The idea that an all loving creator would burn the sinners for eternity is a logical contradiction that many don't seem to realise.

This is going to sound horrible, but I don't actually think about other people's beliefs enough to know what to ask. I'm always interested when people explain it (I lurk the Muslim threads for example). I think that tends to be ingrained in Christians. The teaching actually discourages learning about other faiths or challenges to ours (This is where the false idea that we hate science because we reject science's stance on how life got here).

I stay open minded, but still lack the ability to ask. I will when question come up though- promise. Feel free to explain though!

It doesn't sound horrible at all, in fact I quite understand as I felt the same for much of my life.

I think an interesting proposition for Atheist GAF is the idea of 'the strongest/most logical position for belief in God'. As in, what do you think is the best argument for the existence of God? I can acknowledge one particular argument as fairly strong, but I have never seen Christian/Theistic Gaf use the argument. I would be good to see Atheist Gaf acknowledge some of the stronger arguments.

 

[Roscoe]

I've probably done more harm than good so I will not be posting in this thread any longer.

Peace out.

Good riddance you troll asshat. Sorry, for the use of foul language in this thread.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Good riddance you troll asshat. Sorry, for the use of foul language in this thread.

You're an asshole, and I won't apologize for calling an asshole an asshole.

 

[TaeOH]

What are you talking about? We know that Quirinius was governor of syria in 6CE, there are written records of all the governors of syria going past the time of Herod the great. We also have Quirinius history as to his early years before he became governor of syria.




At the time of herod the great we know from historical record Quirinius was not the governor of syria. We know that the census luke speaks of did not happen during the time of Herod the great or his son because at that time judea was not part of the roman empire hence the reason herod was a client king. We know that judea came under full roman control in 6CE and this was when they now had to pay taxes directly to roman(census) also base on historical doc Quirinius was made governor of syria. If this all happened in 6CE and this is lukes explanation for why joseph went back to judea expalin why matthew said this happened during the time of herod the great when herod the great died in 4 BCE.


Please show me with facts, not if's and's but's and maybe's..
Maybe you have an answer that no one else has.

You seem a little hostile. His answer is perfectly valid. Mathew and Luke had different purposes behind what they wrote and Luke has been accredited as being an historian of high merit. So as far as the facts of the matter, if this is your interest, trust Lukes account.

 

[Jackson]

God cannot be explained through logic. Faith is the belief of something without proof (that's the literal Webster definition).

This is the biggest issue that separates the two camps. If you want to argue logic, then yes it's completely stupid to put your whole heart, soul and being into something that cannot be factually proven or even seen. But that's not what faith is about. I've personally experienced many incredible miracles in my life, which is what caused me to become a Christian -- first hand anecdotal life changing experience between you and God.

The best way to determine if God is real or not is to sincerely ask God yourself. If you don't get an answer, cool you're right! If you do, cool you're wrong, maybe it will change you, maybe not! There's no risk to completely and utterly opening your heart and saying "Jesus if you'r real prove it, I give my life to you... show me you're real."

Worst that happens is you go "Oh... Nothing happened. I guess I was right. Carry on then."

In nerd terms it actually is a lot like the matrix. You can't be told about it, you have to experience it. If you don't experience it for yourself, you would never believe the matrix is true and you would think other people are crazy for believing we're all trapped in a computer dream simulation. The only way to see for yourself is to stop talking about why it's crazy/wrong/stupid and just take the blue pill and hope the blue pill really works and doesn't kill you or something.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

The best way to determine if God is real or not is to sincerely ask God yourself. If you don't get an answer, cool you're right! If you do, cool you're wrong, maybe it will change you, maybe not! There's no risk to completely and utterly opening your heart and saying "Jesus if you'r real prove it, I give my life to you... show me you're real."

Worst that happens is you go "Oh... Nothing happened. I guess I was right. Carry on then."

This also works if you replace jesus, with say Thor or a block of cheese. But you wouldn't worship either of those.

 

[Jackson]

This also works if you replace jesus, with say Thor or a block of cheese. But you wouldn't worship either of those.

Did you try all of those? Did they work for you?

Jesus actually worked for me. Did you try it?

I can only be accountable for myself. I'm telling you what worked for me and explaining how it happened, so if you want tor try it as well, you can. It's up to you to decide what works for you. I don't have any vested interest in your personal choices.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Did you try all of those? Did they work for you?

Jesus actually worked for me. Did you try it?

I can only be accountable for myself. I'm telling you what worked for me and telling you how, so if you want tor try it as well, you can. It's up to you to decide what works for you. I don't have any vested interest in your personal choices.

The point is, whatever happened to you was more than likely coincidental and not divine intervention.

The same outcome would have been reached if instead of Jesus, you asked those things of Allah or the spirit of your ancestors.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

God cannot be explained through logic. Faith is the belief of something without proof (that's the literal Webster definition).

This is the biggest issue that separates the two camps. If you want to argue logic, then yes it's completely stupid to put your whole heart, soul and being into something that cannot be factually proven or even seen. But that's not what faith is about. I've personally experienced many incredible miracles in my life, which is what caused me to become a Christian -- first hand anecdotal life changing experience between you and God.

The best way to determine if God is real or not is to sincerely ask God yourself. If you don't get an answer, cool you're right! If you do, cool you're wrong, maybe it will change you, maybe not! There's no risk to completely and utterly opening your heart and saying "Jesus if you'r real prove it, I give my life to you... show me you're real."

Worst that happens is you go "Oh... Nothing happened. I guess I was right. Carry on then."

In nerd terms it actually is a lot like the matrix. You can't be told about it, you have to experience it. If you don't experience it for yourself, you would never believe the matrix is true and you would think other people are crazy for believing we're all trapped in a computer dream simulation. The only way to see for yourself is to stop talking about why it's crazy/wrong/stupid and just take the blue pill and hope the blue pill really works and doesn't kill you or something.

I somewhat agree with your sentiments, though the people who have been responding to my questions believe that it isn't JUST faith, but that logic and evidence also point to the reality of God.

I would be very interested in hearing your miracle experiences, though I'm sure they are very personal to you and you may not feel like sharing them, which is understandable. I have asked for God to show me 'a sign' or something to prove his existence, nothing happened, but that is not proof that he doesn't exist. The opposite is also true, you may have perceived something as a sign and have attributed it to God. That's why anecdotal evidence is inherently unreliable, you may be personally justified in believing, but it doesn't help anyone else in gaining to truth.

Would you also take a stab at describing God's relationship to Logic. Did he create logic? Is he bound by it?

 

[Jackson]

The point is, whatever happened to you was more than likely coincidental and not divine intervention.

The same outcome would have been reached if instead of Jesus, you asked those things of Allah or the spirit of your ancestors.

It absolutely could be coincidental! You're right.

But the reason why I don't personally believe that is because I've had an enumerable amount of experiences where I trusted in Christ to see me through whatever problem it was from all different issues of life such as health, relationships, money, whatever. The amount of times where I leaned on God and got results outside of my ability to influence those results are so many I can't assign them to coincidence anymore. To me it would be like someone saying there's trillions of stars in the sky, but we're the only life in the universe. The statistics for me are too great.

Again this is just my experience, which is again what faith is all about. If you tried to have a personal relationship with God maybe the same would happen for you, maybe not. I don't know, I just know what worked for me. BTW - it's totally ok for you to not believe in God. I'm not trying to judge you, just sharing my own experience and beliefs.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

It absolutely could be coincidental! You're right.

But the reason why I don't personally believe that is because I've had an enumerable amount of experiences where I trusted in Christ to see me through whatever problem it was from all different issues of life such as health, relationships, money, whatever. The amount of times where I leaned on God and got results outside of my ability to influence those results are so many I can't assign them to coincidence anymore. To me it would be like someone saying there's trillions of stars in the sky, but we're the only life in the universe. The statistics for me are too great.

Again this is just my experience, which is again what faith is all about. If you tried to have a personal relationship with God maybe the same would happen for you, maybe not. I don't know, I just know what worked for me. BTW - it's totally ok for you to not believe in God. I'm not trying to judge you, just sharing my own experience and beliefs.

Though I don't agree with some of things you've said, I can respect your private and personal beliefs as you seem to be a civil and respectable person.

 

[chubigans]

It absolutely could be coincidental! You're right.

But the reason why I don't personally believe that is because I've had an enumerable amount of experiences where I trusted in Christ to see me through whatever problem it was from all different issues of life such as health, relationships, money, whatever. The amount of times where I leaned on God and got results outside of my ability to influence those results are so many I can't assign them to coincidence anymore. To me it would be like someone saying there's trillions of stars in the sky, but we're the only life in the universe. The statistics for me are too great.

Again this is just my experience, which is again what faith is all about. If you tried to have a personal relationship with God maybe the same would happen for you, maybe not. I don't know, I just know what worked for me. BTW - it's totally ok for you to not believe in God. I'm not trying to judge you, just sharing my own experience and beliefs.

I am in the exact same boat, Jackson. And I couldn't have put it more eloquently.

 

[Jackson]

I somewhat agree with your sentiments, though the people who have been responding to my questions believe that it isn't JUST faith, but that logic and evidence also point to the reality of God.

I would be very interested in hearing your miracle experiences, though I'm sure they are very personal to you and you may not feel like sharing them, which is understandable. I have asked for God to show me 'a sign' or something to prove his existence, nothing happened, but that is not proof that he doesn't exist. The opposite is also true, you may have perceived something as a sign and have attributed it to God. That's why anecdotal evidence is inherently unreliable, you may be personally justified in believing, but it doesn't help anyone else in gaining to truth.

I don't believe God can be proven or unproven. There's an infinite amount of (biased) evidence from both sides to prove one side right.

When I became a Christian I truly and utterly and fully gave myself to Jesus. I said my life is no longer my own, it's yours now to lead as you want. I wasn't timid at all, I didn't ask for a sign, I was like -- Me and you! This is it, I'm giving you the chance, my heart is open, I have no skepticism, I'm open so prove it... and for me God did.

I agree that anecdotal evidence is 100% unreliable, that's why the only way to find out is to try for yourself.

Would you also take a stab at describing God's relationship to Logic. Did he create logic? Is he bound by it?

I view God as being outside our box. I'm a game designer, so I kind of look at it like The Sims vs Will Wright. That's an extremely obtuse analogy so please bare with me. The Sims only can understand their world, they are bound to its' rules created by something not bound by those rules. The way Will Wright interacts with The Sims is through the rules The Sims knows, because if he used say a CB radio to talk to them instead of a mouse and keyboard he'd get no results because he didn't design them to interact through a CB radio. They don't know what that is or how it works. But is Will Wright bound to the whims of a PC? No, he can do so much more that, but The Sims can't even fathom what his world is like, it's far out of context for them. Anyway that's very simplistic, but it gets the point across.

For all we know we're humans #45715-A among 10 million other boxes God has going.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I don't believe God can be proven or unproven. There's an infinite amount of (biased) evidence from both sides to prove one side right.

When I became a Christian I truly and utterly and fully gave myself to Jesus. I said my life is no longer my own, it's yours now to lead as you want. I wasn't timid at all, I didn't ask for a sign, I was like -- Me and you! This is it, I'm giving you the chance, my heart is open, I have no skepticism, I'm open so prove it... and for me God did.

I agree that anecdotal evidence is 100% unreliable, that's why the only way to find out is to try for yourself.



I view God as being outside our box. I'm a game designer, so I kind of look at it like The Sims vs Will Wright. That's an extremely obtuse analogy so please bare with me. The Sims only can understand their world, they are bound to its' rules created by something not bound by those rules. The way Will Wright interacts with The Sims is through the rules The Sims knows, because if he used say a CB radio to talk to them instead of a mouse and keyboard he'd get no results because he didn't design them to interact through a CB radio. They don't know what that is or how it works. But is Will Wright bound to the whims of a PC? No, he can do so much more that, but The Sims can't even fathom what his world is like, it's far out of context for them. Anyway that's very simplistic, but it gets the point across.

For all we know we're humans #45715-A among 10 million other boxes God has going.

I'm sure you're aware of the burden of proof and how it relates to positive claims. I'm not making a claim, I'm just not accepting yours. Thus the burden lies with someone claiming God's existence.

It sounds like you're saying you must first absolutely, unconditionally believe in God before your belief will be justified? You're asking me to throw away logic, reason and evidence (the tools that I use to determine reality) in order to believe, you don't see the logical fallacies in this statement? If I was to discard these principals I could believe anything, what a scary proposition...

Interesting analogy, though it relates more to God's manifestation than formal logic. If I gave you the age old, logical dilemma of 'Can God create a rock so large even he can't lift it', how would you answer?

 

[TaeOH]

It absolutely could be coincidental! You're right.

But the reason why I don't personally believe that is because I've had an enumerable amount of experiences where I trusted in Christ to see me through whatever problem it was from all different issues of life such as health, relationships, money, whatever. The amount of times where I leaned on God and got results outside of my ability to influence those results are so many I can't assign them to coincidence anymore. To me it would be like someone saying there's trillions of stars in the sky, but we're the only life in the universe. The statistics for me are too great.

Again this is just my experience, which is again what faith is all about. If you tried to have a personal relationship with God maybe the same would happen for you, maybe not. I don't know, I just know what worked for me. BTW - it's totally ok for you to not believe in God. I'm not trying to judge you, just sharing my own experience and beliefs.

We have a relationship with God, we have the Holy Spirit. This is what testifies to us the truth of what we believe.

I have found as I have gotten older, that God actually asks me to have a different kind of faith as the emotional experiences that were so common in my youth no longer occur as much. So I pray. Many times over the years the circumstances I have prayed for have worked out in ways that my life is transformed. Transformation I did not foresee when I let my request be made known to him. None of these occurrences in and of themselves are proofs of God and Christ, but the circumstantial evidence sure does pile up for ones own faith.

At the same time God seems to require more steps of faith from me, and each time I am reminded of God's trustworthiness from the record of my life. This is the foundation for faith I think. When I put my trust in him, I am rewarded so generously, that it amazes me sometimes that I doubt at all.

Faith is a mystery I have been trying to come to grips with the last several years. I feared I doubted too much these days. I feared something was wrong with my walk and relationship with Christ. Very recently though, I have discovered that you cannot have faith without doubt. It is the nature of faith that doubt accompanies it, otherwise how could it be faith at all?

 

[bonesmccoy]

Hi Christian-Gaf!

I just posted this link in the deconversion thread: http://www.unequally-yoked.com/2011/03/atheists-guide-to-catholics-7-quick.html

The author is an atheist who debates religion, apparently, with her Catholic boyfriend. Christians will find her reasonable and respectful (no 'scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist' stuff), and I think atheists will appreciate her commentary. She's not out for scalps and acclaim, so if arm-chair atheism is your thing, it's probably better to stick with a guy like Myers.

 

[TGateKeeper]

You seem a little hostile. His answer is perfectly valid. Mathew and Luke had different purposes behind what they wrote and Luke has been accredited as being an historian of high merit. So as far as the facts of the matter, if this is your interest, trust Lukes account.

So are you saying matthew is wrong?

All I am asking is for someone to explain to me why Matthew puts jesus birth around the time of herod the great between 7BCE to 4BCE and luke puts it around the time of 6CE. That is all I was asking I am not hstile just want an answer with facts.

If the books of the Bible were inspired by GOD then there should be no errors.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

We have a relationship with God, we have the Holy Spirit. This is what testifies to us the truth of what we believe.

I have found as I have gotten older, that God actually asks me to have a different kind of faith as the emotional experiences that were so common in my youth no longer occur as much. So I pray. Many times over the years the circumstances I have prayed for have worked out in ways that my life is transformed. Transformation I did not foresee when I let my request be made known to him. None of these occurrences in and of themselves are proofs of God and Christ, but the circumstantial evidence sure does pile up for ones own faith.

At the same time God seems to require more steps of faith from me, and each time I am reminded of God's trustworthiness from the record of my life. This is the foundation for faith I think. When I put my trust in him, I am rewarded so generously, that it amazes me sometimes that I doubt at all.

Faith is a mystery I have been trying to come to grips with the last several years. I feared I doubted too much these days. I feared something was wrong with my walk and relationship with Christ. Very recently though, I have discovered that you cannot have faith without doubt. It is the nature of faith that doubt accompanies it, otherwise how could it be faith at all?

See I can't read something like this without thinking that you're crazy. Just look at what you wrote. You actually believe that you're talking to God and he's literally changing the outcome of your life based on your requests.

Edit: I don't mean to be offensive though I know that's how it's going to sound. I'm just trying to illustrate how I don't think that my brain is even capable of faith and it's impossible for me to understand how someone else could have it.

 

[TaeOH]

So are you saying matthew is wrong?

All I am asking is for someone to explain to me why Matthew puts jesus birth around the time of herod the great between 7BCE to 4BCE and luke puts it around the time of 6CE. That is all I was asking I am not hstile just want an answer with facts.

If the books of the Bible were inspired by GOD then there should be no errors.

Sounds like you have a need to research the doctrine of inerrancy and try to understand that first.

 

[TaeOH]

See I can't read something like this without thinking that you're crazy. Just look at what you wrote. You actually believe that you're talking to God and he's literally changing the outcome of your life based on your requests.

Edit: I don't mean to be offensive though I know that's how it's going to sound. I'm just trying to illustrate how I don't think that my brain is even capable of faith and it's impossible for me to understand how someone else could have it.

Have you ever asked yourself the question "What if its true?".

Edit....
And no offense taken, I can totally understand the mindset you are coming from and I don't see your posts in an offensive way at all.

 

[Kinitari]

Have you ever asked yourself the question "What if its true?".

Edit....
And no offense taken, I can totally understand the mindset you are coming from and I don't see your posts in an offensive way at all.

I've done it from time to time (not with Christianity, I was raised Muslim) - but then I usually come out of it more secure in my Atheism.

For example - what if it's true and God is mad at me and wants me to suffer/go to hell (Apostates are not really appreciated in Islam) - well then he's a jerk.

What if it's true and he doesn't care about my good deeds because they weren't done in his name? Well then he's conceited and self-centred, nothing I admire.

The only reason I would HAVE for believing is to be rewarded in the afterlife - if I need to worship to be rewarded, despite any goods I may do, then this God fellow isn't someone I want to worship. I can make this argument a -lot- more complicated, but I am keeping it simple on purpose.

Basically, the only God I could sincerely respect would be one who did not care if I worshipped him.

 

[SmokyDave]

Have you ever asked yourself the question "What if its true?".

I have given this serious thought on occasion. I arrived at the conclusion that I'll be fine. I'm a 'good' person. I know this because it's reflected back at me by those around me. I try to mitigate any actions that have negative consequences to others, I go out of my way to help people wherever I can and I try and approach life with my heart in the right place. If there is a god, and if that god is good, I will be fine.

If there is a god and in order to remain in his graces I had to choose the correct organised religion and follow it to the letter then I'd rather not play his petty little game and I'm happy to go to hell. I figure the music will be better and the chicks will be hotter down there anyway.

Ultimately, I have an internal moral compass that tells me if I'm on the straight and narrow. If I stray from that path I have my friends, my family and my conscience to guide me back. I fear no harm from proceeding in this manner.

 

[TGateKeeper]

Sounds like you have a need to research the doctrine of inerrancy and try to understand that first.

Can u provide me with an answer to my question?
So are u sayong the doctrine of inerrancy applies to all christians?

Edit: if u believe matthew is wrong then just say so and ill leave it at that. U don' t need to tell me to research something i already know. There are christians tht believe the bible is perfect my question was directed at them.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Have you ever asked yourself the question "What if its true?".

Edit....
And no offense taken, I can totally understand the mindset you are coming from and I don't see your posts in an offensive way at all.

Asking that is 1) a threat and 2) logical only when there is a single option.

You can ask the question "What if [insert religion here] is true?" and it has the same validity, more importantly I can ask the same question of you. What if Islam is truth? What if the Mormons are right? What if, what if, what if? There are a hundred possibilities and you're running the risk of losing as well.

Basing your whole life around purely theoretical "what if"s is a terrible way to live. If I had the charisma and the craziness to do it I could convince people that the only way to Heaven would be through gross self-mutilation*. Would you ask "what if" then?

* - $10 says there have been groups that have done this.

Edit: You can say that by snubbing the options I'm denying myself even the 1/1000 chance a religious person has of picking the right one, but with so many options it's clearly a nonsense social construct.

 

[TaeOH]

Can u provide me with an answer to my question?
So are u sayong the doctrine of inerrancy applies to all christians?

Edit: if u believe matthew is wrong then just say so and ill leave it at that. U don' t need to tell me to research something i already know. There are christians tht believe the bible is perfect my question was directed at them.

First, I know of no Christian doctrine that states that the bible is word for word infallible and spoke of God the way you seem to believe it says. The Quran and the Book of Mormon are considered dictated by their respective doctrines, but the Bible is not considered this. So the supposition is at fault. There are some passages in the old testament and the new that the author intent that these are the words of God spoken to them, but no author claimed everything he wrote was spoken by God.

My understanding of the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy is that it covers the truth conveyed by the written word in the original text, which no original document of course has survived. This doctrines purpose governs translation and interpretation so that it remains consistent and that the Bible itself is not just some mystical book that can mean something different to each reader. And I agree with it.

As to whether I believe Mathew or Luke to be in error, well my answer would be the same as JGS, there has been debate about it for years in theological circles of whether both Mathew and Luke could both be right, but nothing concrete based on known external documents. But absence of archeological evidence in support of these arguments does not mean I need to assume that they are incorrect. Luke especially has been proven over and over by discoveries to be correct when the current scholarship believed him to be in error. The Proconsul of Cyprus being one discovery I recall that has the skeptic archeologist claim Luke to be a first rate historian after his own discoveries on the island.

 

[TaeOH]

Asking that is 1) a threat and 2) logical only when there is a single option.

You can ask the question "What if [insert religion here] is true?" and it has the same validity, more importantly I can ask the same question of you. What if Islam is truth? What if the Mormons are right? What if, what if, what if? There are a hundred possibilities and you're running the risk of losing as well.

Basing your whole life around purely theoretical "what if"s is a terrible way to live. If I had the charisma and the craziness to do it I could convince people that the only way to Heaven would be through gross self-mutilation*. Would you ask "what if" then?

* - $10 says there have been groups that have done this.

Edit: You can say that by snubbing the options I'm denying myself even the 1/1000 chance a religious person has of picking the right one, but with so many options it's clearly a nonsense social construct.

A threat? Only one option?

I asked whether you ever thought "what if its true" in relation to you saying you think people are crazy for believing in what they do. The question itself does not assume religion at all. I suppose I could have said have you ever put yourself in someone else's shoes to convey the same thought.

This was a response to what I took as honest dismay by you that others can hold to a world view other than your own. It is quite an arrogant thing to say that you know for a fact that there is no God. Is that actually what you are saying? That you know something to be fact that man has questioned for ages and that all other viewpoints are not only in error, they are crazy?

I am not even sure what do do with the rest of your statement.

 

[TaeOH]

I've done it from time to time (not with Christianity, I was raised Muslim) - but then I usually come out of it more secure in my Atheism.

For example - what if it's true and God is mad at me and wants me to suffer/go to hell (Apostates are not really appreciated in Islam) - well then he's a jerk.

What if it's true and he doesn't care about my good deeds because they weren't done in his name? Well then he's conceited and self-centred, nothing I admire.

The only reason I would HAVE for believing is to be rewarded in the afterlife - if I need to worship to be rewarded, despite any goods I may do, then this God fellow isn't someone I want to worship. I can make this argument a -lot- more complicated, but I am keeping it simple on purpose.

Basically, the only God I could sincerely respect would be one who did not care if I worshipped him.

That is good that you have addressed it. I don't disagree with anything you say, and I don't believe the God you are describing. I would have the same issues as you do.

Your last statement is intriguing though, and I would be interested in clarification. Why would you believe in a God that did not care whether you worshiped him?

Worship is a tricky word. It is one of the religious words that I am not sure I fully understand what is meant by it.

 

[TaeOH]

I have given this serious thought on occasion. I arrived at the conclusion that I'll be fine. I'm a 'good' person. I know this because it's reflected back at me by those around me. I try to mitigate any actions that have negative consequences to others, I go out of my way to help people wherever I can and I try and approach life with my heart in the right place. If there is a god, and if that god is good, I will be fine.

If there is a god and in order to remain in his graces I had to choose the correct organised religion and follow it to the letter then I'd rather not play his petty little game and I'm happy to go to hell. I figure the music will be better and the chicks will be hotter down there anyway.

Ultimately, I have an internal moral compass that tells me if I'm on the straight and narrow. If I stray from that path I have my friends, my family and my conscience to guide me back. I fear no harm from proceeding in this manner.

I don't believe in that God either. I do not believe that we can merit God's favor with works, I do not believe that is what God asks of us.

As I posted earlier in the thread I am uncertain in what I confidently believe about hell, I am just confident in what I believe it takes to have eternal life.

I believe that the internal moral compass you have is from God, it is one of the evidences that helps me believe in a God.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

A threat? Only one option?

I asked whether you ever thought "what if its true" in relation to you saying you think people are crazy for believing in what they do. The question itself does not assume religion at all. I suppose I could have said have you ever put yourself in someone else's shoes to convey the same thought.

This was a response to what I took as honest dismay by you that others can hold to a world view other than your own. It is quite an arrogant thing to say that you know for a fact that there is no God. Is that actually what you are saying? That you know something to be fact that man has questioned for ages and that all other viewpoints are not only in error, they are crazy?

I am not even sure what do do with the rest of your statement.

My mistake, I thought you were proposing Pascal's Wager. "If God is real, I may as well be Christian because either a) nothing happens or b) I go to heaven for eternity."

It's a flawed logic though since there are so many contradicting ways to get to the grand finale, and is a veiled threat because it comes across like "Be a Christian... or else." That's usually how I take it when somebody asks me "What if it's true?"

If you're asking me to consider the possibility that it's true so I can understand how others can have faith, you're contradicting yourself. If it's true, then the bible is truth and there is literal proof of your faith, and since Faith exists only in the lack of proof, we wouldn't be having this conversation, we'd be saying "Remember how last Tuesday God gave everyone tickets to the Laker's Game?"

I'm being hyperbolic, but asking "What if it's true" isn't a valid question because if it isn't true you're a crazy person and believe that there is a holy spirit watching over the universe, and if it is true you are still a crazy person because there's no proof of it, just a social construct dating back thousands of years.

It's not arrogance; I'm not saying for a certainty that there is no ultimate spirit because that's impossible; and it's not because I'm having a hard time understanding the world view because, in a purely academic way I can. It's that I literally cannot comprehend how someone can have Faith in something which, if looked at as a complete outsider, is utterly ridiculous.

I should note that I only went to church a few times as a kid because my mother had a wonderful voice and was in the choir, otherwise God was never spoken of and I grew up utterly devoid of organized religion.

Edit: I almost forgot, when I was eight my mom and I were in the car coming home from some church event and she asked me, "You know all this god and religion stuff isn't true, right?" I don't remember what I said, but it was probably something along the lines of "?" because I never paid any attention in church and had no idea what was going on anyway.

 

[Shanadeus]

I don't believe in that God either. I do not believe that we can merit God's favor with works, I do not believe that is what God asks of us.

As I posted earlier in the thread I am uncertain in what I confidently believe about hell, I am just confident in what I believe it takes to have eternal life.

I believe that the internal moral compass you have is from God, it is one of the evidences that helps me believe in a God.

What do you think of the evolutionary explanation for your internal moral compass then?
That many of our internal morals have an evolutionary advantage and exist in many other animals in nature for the same or similar evolutionary reasons?

 

[Aristion]

What are you talking about? We know that Quirinius was governor of syria in 6CE, there are written records of all the governors of syria going past the time of Herod the great. We also have Quirinius history as to his early years before he became governor of syria.




At the time of herod the great we know from historical record Quirinius was not the governor of syria. We know that the census luke speaks of did not happen during the time of Herod the great or his son because at that time judea was not part of the roman empire hence the reason herod was a client king. We know that judea came under full roman control in 6CE and this was when they now had to pay taxes directly to roman(census) also base on historical doc Quirinius was made governor of syria. If this all happened in 6CE and this is lukes explanation for why joseph went back to judea expalin why matthew said this happened during the time of herod the great when herod the great died in 4 BCE.


Please show me with facts, not if's and's but's and maybe's..
Maybe you have an answer that no one else has.

Luke's credibility has been proven time and time again. Gallio was proven to be Proconsul of Achaia by the Delphi inscription, even when before the discovery of the inscription Luke's reliability was challenged. Similarly Sergius Paulus being Proconsul of Cyprus.

Please come up with something better.

 

[Nocebo]

I don't believe God can be proven or unproven. There's an infinite amount of (biased) evidence from both sides to prove one side right.

When I became a Christian I truly and utterly and fully gave myself to Jesus. I said my life is no longer my own, it's yours now to lead as you want. I wasn't timid at all, I didn't ask for a sign, I was like -- Me and you! This is it, I'm giving you the chance, my heart is open, I have no skepticism, I'm open so prove it... and for me God did.

Well that was your first mistake.
You seem to require as much evidence as these people to believe in God. Have you ever wondered if you're just fooling yourself? You want to believe too much?

 

[Shanadeus]

Also, I have done some further thinking of the whole abortion question in the bible and I've come to a couple of conclusions.

How come that other ancient practices such as prostitution are mentioned in the bible whereas the ancient practice of abortions isn't?

There is, I believe, not a single mention of abortion which to me sounds like the writers of the bible simply didn't find it important to bring up as it was something they just took for granted as acceptable behaviour.

Yes, God does say that thou shalt not kill but most biblical scholars mean that that commandment really just means that thou shalt not kill without a good reason.

Anyway, just some musings of mine.

 

[Nocebo]

Yes, God does say that thou shalt not kill but most biblical scholars mean that that commandment really just means that thou shalt not kill without a good reason.

That can't be right. It would mean you can justify any killing.
What does that commandment say exactly? Does it specifically mention the killing of humans or is it more a general statement that can be extended to animals as well?

 

[abcderik]

I don't believe God can be proven or unproven. There's an infinite amount of (biased) evidence from both sides to prove one side right.

When I became a Christian I truly and utterly and fully gave myself to Jesus. I said my life is no longer my own, it's yours now to lead as you want. I wasn't timid at all, I didn't ask for a sign, I was like -- Me and you! This is it, I'm giving you the chance, my heart is open, I have no skepticism, I'm open so prove it... and for me God did.

I want to respond to this post in a serious manner, but I'm honestly not sure if this post was an attempt to create a parody about fanaticism?

 

[noah111]

Yes, God does say that thou shalt not kill but most biblical scholars mean that that commandment really just means that thou shalt not kill without a good reason.

What a cop-out. All the religions universally state something like this, and for it to be simply up to the person to interpret these sacred laws make them quite pointless.. meh

 

[Shanadeus]

That can't be right. It would mean you can justify any killing.
What does that commandment say exactly? Does it specifically mention the killing of humans or is it more a general statement that can be extended to animals as well?

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou-shall-not-kill-mean.html

The commandment "thou shalt not kill" (found in the KJV Bible translation of Exodus 20:13), is better understood in the New King James Version Bible which states:

"You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13, NKJV throughout)

Most modern translations of the Bible rendered it this way.

According to the Bible not all killing is murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. The command not to murder applies to human beings and not to animals. God gave animals to mankind for his use (Genesis 1:26-30; 9:1-4). But, this does not mean that humans have the right mistreat animals and the environment (Genesis 2:15; Deuteronomy 22:6-7; 25:4; Proverbs 12:10).

Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13).

The primary reason God hates murder is that out of all creation, only human are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:4-6). Even before the codification of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai the murder of other human beings was wrong (Genesis 4:8-12; 4:23-24; 9:4-6; Exodus 1:16-17). While on earth, Jesus spoke out against murder (Matthew 5:21-26; Mark 10:17-19). We also see in the writings of Paul (Romans 1:18, 29-32; 13:8-10; Galatians 5:19-21), James (James 2:8-11; 4:1-3), Peter (1 Peter 4:15-16) and John (Revelation 9:20-21; 21:7-8; 22:14-15) that murder is wrong.

Most scholars translate it into "thou shalt not murder", which of course make some killings that isn't specifically outlawed alright - such as abortion imho.

 

[Chaplain]

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html

This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offence, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a "life for a life," then the men who killed her shall be killed. Some have claimed that the life for a life part is talking about the baby. But from reading the context we can see this is not true. It also states a tooth for a tooth and a burn for a burn. Babies don't have teeth when they are born, and it is highly unlikely a baby will be burned during birth. It is pretty clear that this part refers to the mother. Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.

It's important to note that some anti-abortion lobbyists want to convince us the baby in this passage survived the miscarriage. They point to the more "politically-correct" translation they find in the New International Version of the Bible. There it translates the term "miscarriage" into "gives birth prematurely" (the actual words in Hebrew translate "she lose her offspring"). While this may give them the warm and fuzzy notion that this verse might actually support their cause if maybe the child survived, it is wishful thinking at best. In our modern era of miracle medicine only 60% of all premature births survive. Three thousand years ago, when this passage was written, they did not have modern technology to keep a preemie alive. In fact, at that time, more than half of all live births died before their first birthday. In a world like that, a premature birth was a death sentence.

Others have looked to the actual Hebrew words, themselves, to try and refute these verses. They note that the word "yalad" is used in verse 22 to describe the untimely birth, and that yalad is also used in other places to describe a live birth. They then go on to say other places in the Bible use the words "nefel" and "shakol" to describe a miscarriage. Therefore, the argument goes, the baby in Exodus 21:22 must have been born alive. It's easy to see how a novice might make this mistake, but a closer look at the words in question reveal the flaw in this argument.

The word yalad is a verb that describes the process of something coming out - the departing of the fetus. Since it is describing the process, and not the result, it could be used to describe either a live birth or a miscarriage. Shakol which shows up in Hosea 9:14, is also a verb, but its meaning is to make a woman barren. Now a barren woman certainly might miscarry, but with this understanding of the word, it's clear why the writer of Exodus would not have used it since this miscarriage was caused by an accident, not by barrenness. And the word nefel is not even a verb. It's a noun. True, as a noun it is the term for a miscarried fetus, but the writer wasn't using a noun. He was using a verb to describe the coming out of the fetus. Thus, if I were describing a man falling to his death, I would use the verb "to fall" which can be used for both those who die and those who survive a fall, but to describe the man himself I would use the word the "fatality." So we can see that while a novice might mistake a verb for a noun and come to the wrong conclusions about the original Hebrew words used in the Exodus passage, a more careful look proves that the words only describe the action of losing the fetus, not the fetus itself. And that being the case, we can't use the Hebrew translations to determine if the fetus was alive or not when it came out - so we are forced to accept that in all certainly, considering the medical knowledge at the time, the preemie died. This makes it even more clear that the "tooth for a tooth" passage refers only to the mother, not to the miscarried fetus.

What has been so clearly demonstrated by the passage in Exodus - the fact that God does not consider a fetus a human person - can also be seen in a variety of other Bible verses. In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person. In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe. And in the same book, in Genesis 38:24, we read about a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration. If indeed the Jews, and the God who instructed them, believed the fetus to be an equal human person to the mother, then why would they let the fetus die for the mother's crimes? The truth is simple. A fetus is not a human person, and its destruction is not a murder. Period.

It is time to stop the one-sided view of abortion being proclaimed by Christian leaders. These leaders do not -- despite their claims -- have a biblical mandate for their theologies. It is time to stop preaching that the Bible contains an undeniable doctrine against abortion. It is time to stop the anger and hatred being heaped on abortion doctors and upon women who have abortions, especially when it's done in the name of a God who has not written such condemnations in his Bible. It is time to stop, because the act of making a judgment against people in God's name, when God is not behind the judging, is nothing short of claiming that our own beliefs are more important than God's. We must stop, because if we don't, then indeed the very type of theological argument being used against abortion can be turned around and used to proclaim that abortion is biblical.

I sent part of Brian Elroy McKinley's that you quoted from to two pastors at my church. Here are their responses.

Pastor 1:

Hello Andrew,

My Opinion? The article is blasphemous.

Who wrote this by the way? It's obvious this person twists scripture to fit his/her agenda.

Babies don't have teeth or it is highly unlikely for a baby to be burned during birth-serious? It's interesting to me that in the Ex.21 passage that it is a passage regarding compensations for damages/harm as a result of premeditation or negligence. First of all the scripture they refer to mentions that if men are fighting and a woman with "child," in other words pregnant, so that she gives birth prematurely yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished according as the woman's husband imposes on him, etc.
No harm to who? it doesn't say, therefore by implication it has to be to either one-simple. There is no differentiation between mother or child because both are implied.

The next two verses give us the limitations if any harm occurs-life for life, eye for eye, etc. Again the question is to who? Interesting that they focus on teeth and burns...yet they neglect life for life.

What's also intriguing about this passage is there is punishment either way. The question is whether or not harm came out of the premature delivery.

The writer also refers to the wrong verb, not that its going to make a difference but at least get the right one. It's the word "yatsa" not "yalad." Yalad however is not the word used in this verse, it is the word "Yeled." Yalad is the root word of Yeled which means something born, Yalad means several things such as act as a mid wife, to bear, bring up, etc. Yeled by the way is a masculine noun, not a verb.

They also try to impress you with percentages as if God cannot take care of child born prematurely.

Let me ask you this Andrew, why did God judge Israel for worshipping Molech? Because in their worship they offered their babies into the fiery arms of Molech Lev.18:21, Lev.20:2-5, Jer.32:35.

Fetus is not a person because there was no valuation placed on them? In who's image are we created in again?

The vision of the valley of dead bones, this guy needs to do his homework. What was David's response? Read Psalm 139:14-15 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

David, after Nathan pronounced God's judgment over him because of his adulterous affair declared the child would die (2 Sam12:14-23) and the child died after he was only 7 days old. What was David's response? in verse 23 he says "But now he is dead; why should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

How is David going to see him, I thought he wasn't human according to the writer? so much for "not" being a human person...

Pastor 2

There is a lot of gymnastics going on with passages and words to build a straw man in this article. First of all the phrase "eye for eye", etc is used as a collect description for equal and limited revenge and compensation. Ex. 21:24, Lev. 20, Deut. 19:21 This is evident if you keep reading Ex. 21:22-27 on down, the context is dealing with civil laws and provisions for just protection and compensation for various matters and people in the nation. If the master knocked out one tooth, he would let him go free, this is the context. The phrase is a limitation on the evil heart of man, not a command, so if someone knocked your tooth out, you were not justified in knocking out 2 or 10 of his teeth out. Second, the rational that a baby has not teeth or be burnt, is to miss the entire point out its context. Third to pull all these text together void of their context and intent to conclude that a child in the womb is not a human being, is not only dishonest by contrary to the whole of Scripture. The Bible says he form David in the womb. Ps. 139:13 God knew Jeremiah before He formed him in his mothers womb. Jer. 1:5 Paul says it pleased God to separate him from his mothers womb. Gal. 1:15 AS far as Lev. 27:6 for monetary value to indicate that a fetus was not a person, therefore not counted, the context is "when a person consecrates a certain person by a vow to the Lord" Lev. 27:2, this has nothing to do with that a fetus is not a person, illogical and devoid of common sense and context. For did not Hannah by a vow consecrate Samuel before he was even conceived in her womb? 1Sam. 1:11 The passage of Num 3:15 speaks for itself, the context is the sensus, you do not count people that have not yet been born, that would give you a false number of people, instead of a true number. Last the passage of Gen. 28:34 of Tamar being commanded to be burnt, as required by the law, to prove that God does not consider the fetus a child, is the epitome of not understanding the holiness of God and the high honor given to marriage. The world we live in is a fallen one and all people at one time or another suffer consequences due to another person. The child is not being punished for the mother's sin, she is being punished for her own sin. The child is taken by God to himself God declared this very clear when He took the child of Bathsheba by David and the child of Jeroboam. 2Sam. 12, 1Kings 14:13 I hope that helps you.

What do you think Shanadeus?

 

[jdogmoney]

You guys probably believe in prophecies, don't you.

 

[Kinitari]

That is good that you have addressed it. I don't disagree with anything you say, and I don't believe the God you are describing. I would have the same issues as you do.

Your last statement is intriguing though, and I would be interested in clarification. Why would you believe in a God that did not care whether you worshiped him?

Worship is a tricky word. It is one of the religious words that I am not sure I fully understand what is meant by it.

Well the God I describe is mostly the Islamic interpretation of 'Yahweh', or whomever. But in general, the Abrahamic religions all paint him with the same brush.

This is the thing, I didn't say I would believe in a God who did not care if I did not worship him, I said I could only respect a God who did not care if I did not worship him. The idea of desiring or wanting people to pay you... more than respect, but to think first of you, to idolize you and to constantly thank you for what you've done - it's not something I can respect.

If I were to make up my 'ideal Abrahamic God', he would create and take care of people, and he would not be mad if they did not believe in him, he wouldn't care and he wouldn't punish them for doing so or prevent them from a hypothetical paradise for such a silly reason. Like a soldier who fights a war and comes home, and does not show off his badges - I respect him more than a soldier who comes home after a war and expects praise for his badges.

 

[TaeOH]

What do you think of the evolutionary explanation for your internal moral compass then?
That many of our internal morals have an evolutionary advantage and exist in many other animals in nature for the same or similar evolutionary reasons?

I think quite a lot about it actually, I am not sure I can communicate what I think effectively though. But here goes...

1) I think man by his nature is inquisitive, but not only that, requires answers. So I think every world view does its best to explain everything.

2) I do not see Selection in combination with Behaviorism to be very good answers to how Man evolved his morals or why Man is unique in the animal world. It belittles man as a creature and sits us along side a gnat as far as significance. Personally I think we observe the opposite to be true.

3) My title was given to me by a mod in relation to a simple joke I made in some thread talking about evolution. Unfortunately I cannot remember the joke, just that it was a take on Man Bear Pig from South Park. But in essence, I conceded an argument of God in the Gaps, but that I still much preferred to see myself as an intended eternal being created in the image of God rather than a random matter that is insignificant in space and time. So until I see science come up with God Man Pig, meaning fill in the gaps, I will remain a skeptic as to evolutionary theory's ability to explain the origin of life.

The ironic thing about the title is that I am not trying to prove anything on GAF. I have only posted in defense of truly offensive attacks on faith on this forum. The Church of Dawkins is alive and well here and his evangelists are many. To be honest, I never thought this thread would last when it was created. I thought that those who desired to talk about religion and philosophy on this forum would be drowned out by those seeking to hone their debating skills against the American Pop Culture view of Christianity.

 

[TaeOH]

My mistake, I thought you were proposing Pascal's Wager...

While I find Pascal's Wager interesting, it is not how I would go about choosing my world view, so that was not my intent at all.

If you're asking me to consider the possibility that it's true so I can understand how others can have faith, you're contradicting yourself. If it's true, then the bible is truth and there is literal proof of your faith, and since Faith exists only in the lack of proof, we wouldn't be having this conversation, we'd be saying "Remember how last Tuesday God gave everyone tickets to the Laker's Game?"

I not sure how you see my statements as a contradiction. And in general I do not understand this statement.

I'm being hyperbolic, but asking "What if it's true" isn't a valid question because if it isn't true you're a crazy person and believe that there is a holy spirit watching over the universe, and if it is true you are still a crazy person because there's no proof of it, just a social construct dating back thousands of years.

It's not arrogance; I'm not saying for a certainty that there is no ultimate spirit because that's impossible; and it's not because I'm having a hard time understanding the world view because, in a purely academic way I can. It's that I literally cannot comprehend how someone can have Faith in something which, if looked at as a complete outsider, is utterly ridiculous.

I disagree with this for the most part as I believe there is always value at looking at someone elses point of view as I value humility. And the direction I was going is that if you believed what that person believed, how would you live? In other words, I believe the way I interpret my surroundings is completely consistent with my world view. I was only trying to help you see that as I personally do not see myself as crazy and you expressed a difficulty in understanding faith.

And something that should come out in my posting and likely offend you is I view Darwinism as a kind of faith. I believe we all look at particulars (to steal Francis Schaeffer terminology) with presuppositions. We interpret our surroundings by those presuppositions. The most basic (and yet most difficult and profound) of the presuppositions is whether God and thus the Spiritual or Supernatural exists.

I should note that I only went to church a few times as a kid because my mother had a wonderful voice and was in the choir, otherwise God was never spoken of and I grew up utterly devoid of organized religion.

Edit: I almost forgot, when I was eight my mom and I were in the car coming home from some church event and she asked me, "You know all this god and religion stuff isn't true, right?" I don't remember what I said, but it was probably something along the lines of "?" because I never paid any attention in church and had no idea what was going on anyway.

My experience with church growing up was that while I found a core of the people to be especially attractive (not a physical reference), I did not feel good enough to be around them. Guilt is what Church reminded me of. My childhood experience of church did not help me to understand faith, or much of anything really. But there were a few people (those attractive ones) that made me truly feel loved. It was that love that kept me exploring.

 

[TaeOH]

Well the God I describe is mostly the Islamic interpretation of 'Yahweh', or whomever. But in general, the Abrahamic religions all paint him with the same brush.

This is the thing, I didn't say I would believe in a God who did not care if I did not worship him, I said I could only respect a God who did not care if I did not worship him. The idea of desiring or wanting people to pay you... more than respect, but to think first of you, to idolize you and to constantly thank you for what you've done - it's not something I can respect.

If I were to make up my 'ideal Abrahamic God', he would create and take care of people, and he would not be mad if they did not believe in him, he wouldn't care and he wouldn't punish them for doing so or prevent them from a hypothetical paradise for such a silly reason. Like a soldier who fights a war and comes home, and does not show off his badges - I respect him more than a soldier who comes home after a war and expects praise for his badges.

I have only a cursory understanding of Islam, I am still trying to work out the doctrine of my own faith and have not had time to study others as much. I do think the Christian God is different than you describe, as I think it is the pride of man who wants to believe he can get God's approval by works. So that a religion of works is what man will create. I think many forms of Christianity struggle with this legalism too. They want to say that when you accept Christ that you have eternal life, but many times end up coming off as, accept Christ for eternal life, but don't backslide otherwise you will lose it and God will punish you. So you still need to work for your salvation. This is false teaching IMO. Some do it intentionally, some do not.

Thank you for expanding upon your statement. I wonder about the thought process of those who similarly grow up with a faith other than my own. My two best friends in High School were of different faiths. One grew up Atheist, although the mother was Catholic, the other Jewish of not truly orthodox, but definitely dedicated Jewish parents. We used to have long discussions that many times went all night. They were fun and challenging. They were likely the reason I chose to educate myself further on my parents faith instead of just taking it for granted.

 

[bonesmccoy]

I'm just trying to illustrate how I don't think that my brain is even capable of faith and it's impossible for me to understand how someone else could have it.

Ridiculous. You can't understand how someone can have faith inspired by a religion?

Let me ask you, have you ever had a role model? Someone who said "Do this, and trust me, it will work out well for you"? Of course you have, and in that relationship you had faith that what you were being told would lead to some kind of improvement in your life. That's a very similar kind of faith that religion person has in his relationship with God.

Kinitari: The Christian understanding of God is very different from the Jewish understanding of God and extremely different from the Islamic understanding of God.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Let me ask you, have you ever had a role model? Someone who said "Do this, and trust me, it will work out well for you"? Of course you have, and in that relationship you had faith that what you were being told would lead to some kind of improvement in your life. That's a very similar kind of faith that religion person has in his relationship with God.

You would take advice from a role model without question?

 

[jdogmoney]

Ridiculous. You can't understand how someone can have faith inspired by a religion?

Let me ask you, have you ever had a role model? Someone who said "Do this, and trust me, it will work out well for you"? Of course you have, and in that relationship you had faith that what you were being told would lead to some kind of improvement in your life. That's a very similar kind of faith that religion person has in his relationship with God.

Kinitari: The Christian understanding of God is very different from the Jewish understanding of God and extremely different from the Islamic understanding of God.

Not really.