Or, when you make it up there are no rules.
Indeed. Monavis, you still think/hope that amongst all these heaps and heaps of made up stuff there just has to be a kernel of truth or some common attribute that must be the ‘truth’.
What if there isn’t, it is all just made up?
God is not ‘unknowable’ because he is so superior, he is unknowable because there is nothing to know.
I’d say you shouldn’t follow religions that don’t allow for some free thought and accept some differences of opinion. There is a certain power and value to coming together as a group , especially if your group works to accomplish something positive.
You can’t be a part of any orginization without allowing for some structure and rules but those rules shouldn’t strangle you. Yes you can be a good person without going to church but there can also be positive effects of being part of something larger than yourself and your own interests.
I see that no one has stopped to address your observation. I’ve noticed this phenomenon on other boards as well.
Hey, it works for me. Except for that time I tried to turn the annoying cellphone user into a pillar of salt.
You and I just had this discussion a couple of weeks ago, and here you are, repeating the error you asserted, then.
You may assert that it is your belief that nothing has been directly transmitted to humans by God. You may even assert that you find claims that God imparted any information to humans, directly, to be silly or wishful thinking, or whatever.
Until such time as you demonstrate your evidence, you are out of line in claiming that your belief has been proven. Given any number of assumptions, (such as the non-existence or unlikelihood that a god exists), your assertion is a logical follow-on to those assumptions. However, your claim that such has been proven is simply not true.
I suspect that what you mean to say is that anything we read has been written by a human, so that we cannot know what the original source may have been. However, your erroneous claim, instead, is that it has been “proven” that every one of those statements “came” from a human. If (as unlikely as it may seem) Saul of Tarsus was actually knocked off his horse by God or Moses encountered God in a bush that burned while not being consumed by fire, then the words that they wrote, as humans, actually “came” from God and there has been no “proof” provided that it did not come from God.
There’s no proof that all the world’s gold wasn’t created by leprechauns in 10,000 BC, either.
Does it have a Twitter feed? Or a starship, or both?..
Absolutely true. And if you find me declaring that there is some proof for some religious belief, you are free to challenge me to provide it.
I have not asserted such proof. I have not even asserted that monavis’s belief is in error. However, if someone wishes to assert that some belief of theirs has been proven, this being Great Debates, it is up to them to provide such proof.
Some Christians, do not believe in a personal God.
I'm not sure he did that throughout the Old Testament. The God that is described in much of the OT was a God of Wrath. I believe in a God of Love.
I believe he was until he was Reincarnated. Other Christians may differ.
Some Christians differ. I believe it's true most of the time.
Some liberal Christians differ.
Well see, there is a Trinity of Gods.
I will go along with most of that, but I would replace the ending with "especially those who most need our help.’
No, I don’t think that everything is accurate or clear.
Good list in general. That probably would have fit more Christian beliefs in the mid-Twentieth Century. Many Christians disbelieve in one or more of those, including the Virgin Birth.
There are a lot of conflicts in the Bible, so it’s not perfect. But I do think that it is inspired rather than literally his word.
No, I think the story of Noah was a parable. But to make the concept even worse, supposedly he took seven of each of the good animals and loaded them two by two. (Beats me!)
BTW, welcome to the Straight Dope. Have fun!
Our beliefs are very much alike.
You shouldn’t tell people how to lead their lives when they’re not harming anyone by their choices and their choices make them happy.
Moses was called a human although there is no proof that he was a real historic person, and we are taking the word and writings of other humans
And since come claim it came from God doesn’t make it the truth. Show me one thing ever written, that can be attributed directly from God. It is the belief in humans or some humans who state it was from God. Muhammad claimed the angel came from God and he dictated a whole book. Do you believe that? Why would God give contrary things for people to do or write? It is belief not fact, but it is fact that some human said , wrote or taught that God said or did something. Because a person believes God told him something, doesn’t make it fact.
Your beliefs are every bit your Right, and I have no quarrel with that! There is far more proof that all writings were from humans, and none from God. The God they write or taught about is very contrary to the actions of an all knowing , loving father, or being.
Meh, we aren’t stirred up, no one posting here feels threatened. It’s one part recreational argumentation, and one part dare to the religious lurkers.
Of course the NT is all ORAL and later put to print.
Paul the earliest Christian writer could not identify the Historical Jesus if there ever was one.
Paul does not even really quote Jesus and claims he is presenting HIS OWN GOSPEL.
I will provide scripture if needed.
The Luke author states in his preface he is simply repeating hear say.
There is not one account written in the bible regarding Jesus that comes from an eye witness, not one. What is in the four gospels was written at min a generation after the Jesus event.
Example; Which possible author could have witnessed the Nativity scene?
Every single thing written about Jesus in the Bible regarding his life; all came from ORAL and later was put to written Passions/Gospels.
We do not have any original copies to compare with.
What we do have shows there have been many changes from the oldest Greek manuscripts.
A classic example is the word Lucifer in the OT; this came from the common era Latin NOT Hebrew, Aramaic or LXX Greek.
Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” is a good read to see many of the changes that have happened to Christian scripture over the years.
You persist in missing the point.
I have not put forth any belief as true. My beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion.
I have not even challenged your right to post your beliefs as true.
I have simply noted that you insist on posting your beliefs as “proven” without providing a single shred of evidence that would support this “proof,” a “proof” that you have also failed to provide.
Is it possible the word you should be using is “evidence” and not “proof?” With that minor alteration, I think many of us here would agree with you. But when you use the word “proof” you lose some of us.
What we have shows that there have been some changes from the original. How many, what they are, and what relevance they have is up for discussion, but it does not support the notion that the bible is some sort of late creation with no contact to the first century.
Pointing to “Lucifer” is an interesting example of the error you seem to be promoting.
Lucifer, meaning light bearer, is a fairly decent translation of the Hebrew word/name employed in Isaiah 14:12–the ONLY place in the bible where the name appears. It did not originally refer to the figure that Christians identify as Satan or the devil in that passage. Instead, it referred to a local prince with a name or title of “Light” and “Morning Star” who was thrown down, (in Philistine legends, for having tried to be the equal of their god), giving the author of Isaiah an opportunity to mock him.
Later Christians took the aspect of the fall, applied it to the intertestamental stories of the fall of the angels, and identified the name Lucifer with the Christian Satan.
However, the name was not generally applied to Satan or a demonic character throughout later translations of the bible. It is used in only that one verse in the bible, regardless whether that verse is Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or some later translated language.
Regardless what Christians may have done with the name in their expanded theology, Lucifer is not an example of “many changes” that may or may not have occurred in translating bible. (It would have served you better to point to the parthenon vs almah issue in Isaiah, but it would still not point to “many changes.”)
“'If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.” - Leviticus 21: 9
“And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.” - Leviticus 24: 16
“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. - Leviticus 25: 44-46
Before you say that Jesus came to do away with the old law, let me remind you that he actually did not.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matt 5:17 (Jesus)
So, perhaps maybe YOU should read with earnest. This might be a good start.
Keep your prayers to yourself. I won’t no part of your god.