Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seemed like a simple question with a potent and very important point to me. I'm glad some can at least grasp the concept, that it makes sense. You don't serve Christ by killing each other, no matter how many gods tell you otherwise.
Excuse me, making sense doesn't usually do any good in cases like this.
Seemed like a simple question with a potent and very important point to me. I'm glad some can at least grasp the concept, that it makes sense. You don't serve Christ by killing each other, no matter how many gods tell you otherwise.
Quite. You grasp the very real change in the message. Indeed the Christian have recognized this by saying "God doesn't change, but the message changed". Whether that argument stands up or not is a matter of debate, but it recognizes a change. Tanach to Gospels, which Mystic is well aware of.
Excuse me, making sense doesn't usually do any good in cases like this.
It does to us. Objections are made, and have to be considered. If they do not stand up, they are dismissed - until the next time.
As I explained to Truth -teller who proffered proofs of the Quran, it doesn't matter that he (or she) rejust my arguments. The point is that I (or we0 are not persuaded, not that he (or she, or they) are argued out of believing.
It is of course a basic flaw in the approach, regarding the faith claim as true until 100% debunked (and even then they'd believe on Faith) when the logic is not to believe until a convincing case is made. It the arguments are not convincing, then the case for belief faiths.
I agree, there is no reason to believe, follow, or push forth the notion that we are justified in doing anything we want in support of an unsupported belief statement. where i diverge from you (and most believers in a statement of belief about god or no god) is that I apply common sense to my own belief statements too.
after the common sense statement of:
there is no reason to believe, follow, or push forth the notion that we are justified in doing anything we want in support of an unsupported belief statement.
we have to put what a belief state statement in there and check it out. We have to put a number in for an undefined variable.
examples
"my god created the earth." or
"spread the good news" or
"no god only"
then toss in things personality traits, like adult child of abuse, addiction, and mentals along with those statements of belief to predict and how they would discuss opposition to there belief statement in god (god or no god).
what do we get? goto cites that don't have strong restrictions to what people can post about other people. Unhealthy interactions.
From her reply, I don't think she understood what you are asking.
Tanach, the books of the JEWS??? No, contradictory narrative to the teachings of Christ in those 66 books?
Nothing?
This is not my first rodeo with Mystic and I knew exactly what he was asking, as his contention is always that the OT/Tanach is contradictory to the NT, which simply isn't true. And this reply is for you too, Trans....Peace
Seemed like a simple question with a potent and very important point to me. I'm glad some can at least grasp the concept, that it makes sense. You don't serve Christ by killing each other, no matter how many gods tell you otherwise.
Let's see now: the Lord G-d said to Abraham after he offered up his son, "Now I know that you love Me". Jesus said essentially, if you love your family more than Me, you're not worthy of Me. Notice that familiar ring it has to it? Peace
This is not my first rodeo with Mystic and I knew exactly what he was asking, as his contention is always that the OT/Tanach is contradictory to the NT, which simply isn't true. And this reply is for you too, Trans....Peace
Well, yoiu had the run ins, not me, so you may be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Which of the many contradictory characteristics in those 66 books do you believe are true since so many are absolutely evil and savage?
With 66 books, I gathered we was talking about the Bible, not the Tanach. Of course the Tanach in no better. Mystic rejects the bible as anything much more than an example to teach us to do better. It is certainly not something to base our lives and society on. Or at least, that's what I gathered.
He and i agree on a lot more than we disagree on. The main difference (apart from everything else in his hyposthsterous) is in the interpretation of the crucifixiomn - which I think we both beleive was an actual event. He thinks it was an event used (if not designed) to teach us something about Love. I think it was the Romans removing a trouble -maker.
I don't claim to have sussed his theology in detail as I only needed to grasp (and drop like a genetically enhanced stinging -nettle) his spiritual learning -curve theory and didn't dig into how he fits that to to all the bible and previous religions, but I gather that he doesn't advocate taking them as guides for life. That's why he asks - as any atheist apologist does - whether you base you life on all God's supposed word, or just the bits humanist society has taught to are good.
Last edited by mensaguy; 08-13-2017 at 11:50 AM..
Reason: fixed quote tag
Well, yoiu had the run ins, not me, so you may be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Which of the many contradictory characteristics in those 66 books do you believe are true since so many are absolutely evil and savage?
With 66 books, I gathered we was talking about the Bible, not the Tanach. Of course the Tanach in no better. Mystic rejects the bible as anything much more than an example to teach us to do better. It is certainly not something to base our lives and society on. Or at least, that's what I gathered.
He and i agree on a lot more than we disagree on. The main difference (apart from everything else in his hyposthsterous) is in the interpretation of the crucifixiomn - which I think we both beleive was an actual event. He thinks it was an event used (if not designed) to teach us something about Love. I think it was the Romans removing a trouble -maker.
I don't claim to have sussed his theology in detail as I only needed to grasp (and drop like a genetically enhanced stinging -nettle) his spiritual learning -curve theory and didn't dig into how he fits that to to all the bible and previous religions, but I gather that he doesn't advocate taking them as guides for life. That's why he asks - as any atheist apologist does - whether you base you life on all God's supposed word, or just the bits humanist society has taught to are good.
Re the crucifixion, for what it's worth....I think it was both. Peace
Last edited by mensaguy; 08-13-2017 at 11:51 AM..
Reason: Fixed quote inside quote
This is not my first rodeo with Mystic and I knew exactly what he was asking, as his contention is always that the OT/Tanach is contradictory to the NT, which simply isn't true. And this reply is for you too, Trans....Peace
It seems to be impossible to stop the all-or-nothing thinking that predominates in your arguments, Rbbi. The contradictions do NOT apply to the entire OT which is silly. There are many contradictions to the Gospel of Christ in the OT and you have made an accurate description of them a banning offense by your taking offense at the adjectives. Jesus has said, "You have been told, but I say . . ." and the primitive brutality supposedly ordered by God in the OT is egregious by any objective standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rbbi1
Let's see now: the Lord G-d said to Abraham after he offered up his son, "Now I know that you love Me". Jesus said essentially, if you love your family more than Me, you're not worthy of Me. Notice that familiar ring it has to it? Peace
Why does it not surprise you that your all-knowing God would not know that Abraham loved Him without all the coy pretense? The attitude attributed to Jesus in your reference is NOT compatible with the Holy Spirit of Agape so I reject it. I also reject the one about hating your mother and father etc. Hating is completely incompatible with Agape. They are more likely the corruptions by bitter isolated monks angry with their families.
It seems to be impossible to stop the all-or-nothing thinking that predominates in your arguments, Rbbi. The contradictions do NOT apply to the entire OT which is silly. There are many contradictions to the Gospel of Christ in the OT and you have made an accurate description of them a banning offense by your taking offense at the adjectives. Jesus has said, "You have been told, but I say . . ." and the primitive brutality supposedly ordered by God in the OT is egregious by any objective standards.
Why does it not surprise you that your all-knowing God would not know that Abraham loved Him without all the coy pretense? The attitude attributed to Jesus in your reference is NOT compatible with the Holy Spirit of Agape so I reject it. I also reject the one about hating your mother and father etc. Hating is completely incompatible with Agape. They are more likely the corruptions by bitter isolated monks angry with their families.
Of course you do, because you are the ultimate cherry picker. Pick away....Peace
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does to us. Objections are made, and have to be considered. If they do not stand up, they are dismissed - until the next time. 
