Do you read the Bible?

[AwallaceUNC]

Indeed. When I said we don't know God's form, I was referring to whether or not He is even in human form or spirit form or what. We only know that humanity (yes, both genders) was designed in His image. That has nothing to do with His gender, which I explained above.

-Aaron

[Uncle Remus]

So this is what happen when your DSL connection doesn't work. A topic that once had 30 posts now has 120 POSTS!!! Come on people give this topic a rest. I agree with MMB with this topic being the most contrevesional topic of 2004. I hope it wins

[Prince Adam]

Actually it's pretty good that a topic this controversial hasn't had to be locked yet.

I don't think this forum's been able to have many of those yet...

[Loomis]

This is sort of on the same note as what I said to JJJ & Prince Ali as well. Would it really be too much for this omniscient power to have rules, standards, a 'worthification' process?

Well, not if you accept god is omnibenevolent- meaning all knowing, all forgiving. If god truly is all knowing al and loving and all forgiving (which I think most Christians would believe) a "worthification process" as you put it would be a complete foreign concept to this god.

If god is truly omnibenevolent (all-loving, infinate love), then why did he make a creation (man) knowing it would sin, dissapoint him, knowing that he'd have to destroy them, and start over again, wouldnt an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being be able to create a being so perfect that it could not sin, yet still have its free will It so much wants us to cherish?

And if god could create a man (Jesus) who was perfect, and sin free, then why couldnt he create all men like Jesus? If we are truly created in the image of god, why would he create beings that would torture and kill a man (jesus) who was perfect, and sin free, then why - couldnt he create all men like jesus?

Does god find pleasure in pain? A truly benevolent god wouldnt want its children to suffer. A truly benevolent god wouldn't stab you in the back to sell you bandages. Get you hooked on cigarettes to sell you nicotine. Its all the same. Create a being he knows will sin and dissapoint him, so he creates a place he knows he will have to punish them. He knew all this before he created the first human.

Now, given that I've used this argument before in the Passion debate, the response was a resounding "we have free will" - god creates conflict so that when we choose to love him, it will be worth all the more.

I mean, does that mean we have a god who likes to create conflict just so
we will love him more? Does this also mean that Jesus was without free will because he had no choice but to love god because he was one in the same? Jesus was a mechatron?

To take all your arguments one step further, if god can't create a person that cannot sin, AND have free will at the same time, then god can't do everything, and is not omnipotent.

If that is the case, then even god may not know what the ultimate correct path is. How are we as humans supposed to presume what is correct?

Ok, I've devised a simple test here.

Loomis and His Wacky Test Part 1

Ok, I am god.

I am the alpha and the omega.

Everything I say is right and if you read all my posts on this forum, and obey their commands you will enter the kingdom of heaven.

Prove me wrong.

Can you say that my path is any less correct than yours? If you do, you are speaking ill of god and you will be punished. If you worship a god other than Loomis, you are following the wrong path and you will be punished. If you do all the things I don't want you to you will go to the fiery pits of hell where you will suffer a enternity of pain and torture and nasty things.

But I love you all.

So there. I am god. I have a written doctrine, and it comes directly from me.

Prove me wrong (keeping in mind that challenging me is against god's will and that mine is the only true way).

[AwallaceUNC]

There are things God cannot do. But He bound Himself from being able to do them. For example, God can't remember forgiven sin.. God can't lie. God can't sin. Why can't He do these things? Because He said He can't. And since He can't lie, what He says is made truth- a law of nature. It creates a sort of paradox, if you will.

God didn't create sin. Satan did. Yes, God created Satan, but as an angel. Satan, as Lucifer the angel, exercised free will in choosing to rise up against God. It was God's will that humans resist Satan's sin and follow Him. However, He loves us enough to give us the free will to not follow His will.

Could God have created a race of the perfect, instead of the inperfect? Sure. But then He would have created a race of Gods. So what would be the point? And yes, He is a vain and jealous God. He doesn't take pleasure in pain- the extreme opposite, in fact. He does, however, take pleasure in love and worship for Him.

On the subject of God being omnibenevolent, as you put it (which I would take more as always well-meaning, but I digress), He is not at all-forgiving. There is no free-for-all forgiveness. God does forgive everything, yes, (except blasphemy) but only Christians who both sincerely ask for His forgiveness and repent.

So there. I am god. I have a written doctrine, and it comes directly from me.

Prove me wrong (keeping in mind that challenging me is against god's will and that mine is the only true way).

You didn't create us.

-Aaron

[Loomis]

So there. I am god. I have a written doctrine, and it comes directly from me.

Prove me wrong (keeping in mind that challenging me is against god's will and that mine is the only true way).

You didn't create us.

-Aaron

Well, prove that.

You only have "god's word" (i.e. the bible) that he or she is the creator (or as you might say, your faith in that word). Well, I am saying that I am god and I have the text to prove it. So by questioning me as god, you are undergoing the same process as you would do reading the bible. You are taking my text and adding your interpretation (which seems to be based largely on your own beliefs in another text).

So, this brings us full circle back to the bible interpretation question. You originally said in regards to the bible "I don't think you should interpret it at all, but rather, just read it as it is written." Well, here you have been given a choice - your god's words (in your bible) and my god (me). However, you have chosen to interpret YOUR bible as the correct answer. If you were to take the holy word as written, you should accept all holy words and not just the one you choose to believe.

Also, about 5 pages back you also said:

Christians hardly have the right to submit God to literary criticism. You certainly have the right to question it, though; hopefully it will lead you to God. If not, though, be prepared to accept the consequences for questioning too long. Then there's the worst choice of all, not believing or question, but simply ignoring.

By choosing not to believe my text - or those of Judaism, Islam etc - you have 'simply ignored' a whole stack of faiths. You have submitted my claims to questioning, and you have nothing more than your own faith to assure you that your text is any better than mine, or any other text mentioned. By your own admission, simply ignoring is the worst choice of all. But you have no problem with simply ignoring Islam or Judaism (or my religion, were I to found one) simply because it is not your own. Is it that hard to believe, then, that you COULD be wrong? Or if your faith is not wrong, could it not be possible that other faiths have equal access to god?

See, you originally spoke of not following one faith blind, but instead it being based on your own beliefs. However, because of that faith and its teachings, you are rejecting my claims to deity (and those of other major religions) out of hand without so much as a second thought, simply because your faith teaches you that you are right. Of course it does! No faith is going to say "We are POSSIBLY the only path to heaven...".

See in the end, you are saying that the bible is not open to interpretation. I am saying the same thing about my own words, here and now. I am god and my words are not open to interpretation. By stating that your faith is the only true one, you have contradicted yourself. You are interpreting both my words, the words of the other religions and the words of your own religion and (hopefully) making a choice based on that, and your own faith. The only other alternatives are that your religion has either brainwashed you or you are simply prejudiced against those religions that are not your own. Far be it for me to make such an accusation in a civilized debate, so I can only assume that you are making your own interpretation of the bible based on the teachings of your faith (which I have not yet asked you specifically about yet). Thus, the bible MUST be open to interpretation, because by choosing ANY path based on the teachings of god/the bible, you are making an interpretive choice that guides you.

Plus, you have just challenged my will. Sorry, you aren't following the path. You just lost your ticket to heaven.

[Maerj]

Good to see the money on a law degree wasn't wasted!

[Loomis]

Good to see the money on a law degree wasn't wasted!

Well, all lawyers believe they are god eventually....

[Maerj]

Are you actually planning on working as a lawyer or are you pursuing other things?

[Loomis]

Are you actually planning on working as a lawyer or are you pursuing other things?

Well, I'm keeping my options open at the moment.
Being a god kind of appeals to me now.

[MickeyMouseboy]

Loomis and His Wacky Test Part 1

Does that mean Loomis World of Horror might make it's come back soon?

[PrinceAli]

Loomis and His Wacky Test Part 1

Does that mean Loomis World of Horror might make it's come back soon?

Wow, this thread even has a word from our sponsers post. "And now back to your scheduled progamming"..

Anyway, Aaron...I don't see how you can enjoy reading the Bible if you can't even think about what you are reading. It's almost as if there was no point. You as a Christian fundamentalist, do have a blind faith...but I ask you, wouldn't you like to have a faith in a God who believes in science? If God created us in his own image, shouldn't he also be proud of the great achievements science has given us? Science has helped us save many lifes and rid the world of terrible diseases. Science has helped us discover more in the world and explore the solar system. Science has even helped create new ideas and encourage us to spread our imagination. I do understand though, that there are some bad things people have done with science such as create nuclear weapons or C4 type bombs. But like you said, man can have a bad influence on things. Churches and religion is man-made. Priests are men and not God, and can spread the "word of God" in terrible ways and create war. But your Bible tells us that God comes before man and that man-made discoveries and ideas are nothing but sin. You live in a country where freedom is valued amongst millions, yet your Bible tells us that we can have free-will but the use of it is bad. Your God came to Earth as a Jew, was tortured, and then spread Christianity? I don't understand. So I ask you, which would you choose? Blind faith for people who have to believe the Bible is right, or science and faith that is for everyone and will always progress? A world that will stay the same as the Bible for millions of years, or a world that will change just like schoolbooks are changed with new discovery? A God who rejects what man creates, or a god who is proud of what good comes from humans? A god who values righteousness, or one that will damn you to Hell for having it even if you don't believe Jesus was the savior or never heard of Him. Because I can tell you, a lot of the people involved in creating the Christian religion have the same faith as you do in believing in the same God, but according to you...is alright as long as they have the common belief that Jesus is the way.

[Porce]

I'd just like to butt in to this monster of a thread and say that religion does not necessarily contradict science, and I as a Christian have absolutely no problem with curing diseases and finding cures for others as long as it hurts nobody else.

And I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'll reply anyway:

Blind faith for people who have to believe the Bible is right, or science and faith that is for everyone and will always progress?

It's an unfair assumption to call faith in the Bible blind but then saying faith in science isn't blind (but I like it that you're admitting that scientists have faith). You have the Bible on one side, and your biology textbook on the other side, and you'll need to take a step of faith either way. If evolution the way textbooks tell it is hard, cold fact, then you'd wonder why evolutionists are so aggressive and argumentative to prove that they're right. I'd think facts would speak for themselves.

A world that will stay the same as the Bible for millions of years, or a world that will change just like schoolbooks are changed with new discovery?

The fact that the Bible stays the same and that the schoolbook changes isn't a good argument for a progressive or evolutionist to use, if you think about it.

A God who rejects what man creates, or a god who is proud of what good comes from humans?

Who said God isn't proud of what good comes from humans? He's the one who defined good in the first place. Without a definitive truth, good will always be changing. It might not be acceptable to rape somebody now, but the way things are going, 200 years from now it will be a sound practice. Why would anybody want the definitions of good and bad to change? I don't see what's so appealing about that.

[2099net]

A God who rejects what man creates, or a god who is proud of what good comes from humans?

Who said God isn't proud of what good comes from humans? He's the one who defined good in the first place. Without a definitive truth, good will always be changing. It might not be acceptable to rape somebody now, but the way things are going, 200 years from now it will be a sound practice. Why would anybody want the definitions of good and bad to change? I don't see what's so appealing about that.

I'm sorry Dacp, but that rape comment was way off. Firstly, I don't believe rape is anymore widespread today than it was 200 years ago (check out the 'real' Victorian Britain, and then wonder why so many politicians seem to want us to go back to Victorian Values, when as far as I can see it means hiding or simply ignoring life's unpleasentness).

All that has changed these days is that (1) It's more socially unacceptable these days (and that is true, despite how saturated the media is the topic) (2) woman have more rights and input into society, so are able to create more awareness of the issue, and feel thay can use their place in society to fight back and (3) today's media likes to sensationalise a lot of high profile cases.

Definitions of good and bad don't really change. All that changes is the way people attempt to rationalise their actions. For example, some Christians rationalised the Crusades and the Inqusition as "good". They managed to internally justify their actions to their own social barometer at the time, and used their faith as a large part of the justification. But no teachings in the Bible would support them if examined properly (I would guess from my limited knowledge, I don't mind be corrected on that).

[Porce]

All that has changed these days is that (1) It's more socially unacceptable these days (and that is true, despite how saturated the media is the topic)

The fact that it's MORE socially unacceptable just shows how morals are changing. But I still think that a few centuries from now some act or idea, such as rape, though not necessarily rape, will be acceptable when it is not today.

(2) woman have more rights and input into society, so are able to create more awareness of the issue, and feel thay can use their place in society to fight back and (3) today's media likes to sensationalise a lot of high profile cases.

I'll give you both of these. But just because rape is more socially unacceptable today than it was, say, 200 years ago, does not mean that it or other sexually immoral acts will become the norm a few centuries from now.

Definitions of good and bad don't really change. All that changes is the way people attempt to rationalise their actions.

This doesn't work, because in many ancient religions temple prostitution was a sacred practice that many young women had to take part in. Now prostitutes voluntarily are prostitutes, whether they need money or they're just a sex-obsessed whore. Now I think we can agree that forcing young women to be temple prostitutes is wrong, but it wasn't considered so in several ancient religions. What did we rationalize to suddenly consider that forced prostitution is wrong?

For example, some Christians rationalised the Crusades and the Inqusition as "good". They managed to internally justify their actions to their own social barometer at the time, and used their faith as a large part of the justification. But no teachings in the Bible would support them if examined properly (I would guess from my limited knowledge, I don't mind be corrected on that).

The Crusades were completely unjustified by the Bible. And by the way, now that the Crusades are generally considered horrible and unacceptable, what did we rationalize to make them no longer good and acceptable? Because at the time they were happening, most, if not all, of the Church Fathers agreed on them as good, and now here we are in the 21st century where Catholics deeply regret the Crusades and consider them completely wrong and unjustified. Either the Crusades were wrong from the very beginning, or the "times changed" and now our morals and ideals have shifted.

[STASHONE]

If evolution the way textbooks tell it is hard, cold fact, then you'd wonder why evolutionists are so aggressive and argumentative to prove that they're right. I'd think facts would speak for themselves.

Aw dude you can't be serious. Not believing in evolution at this point is like not believing in car engines - whether you've observed it or not, the effects are pretty bloody evident!

[2099net]

Definitions of good and bad don't really change. All that changes is the way people attempt to rationalise their actions.

This doesn't work, because in many ancient religions temple prostitution was a sacred practice that many young women had to take part in. Now prostitutes voluntarily are prostitutes, whether they need money or they're just a sex-obsessed whore. Now I think we can agree that forcing young women to be temple prostitutes is wrong, but it wasn't considered so in several ancient religions. What did we rationalize to suddenly consider that forced prostitution is wrong?

I think that's the wrong question. The question should be what did the ancients rationalise in the past to make them think it was right? I ask this, because I guess (though don't know) that any instance of prostitution outside the temple would still be frowned upon.

[MickeyMouseboy]

Now a word from out sponsors:


"less of a masterpiece" - The Loomis Times

"A wondeful religious experience" - Aaron Today

"A bloody bath of blood" - The Herald Netty

"A utterly misleading movie" - The MMB Tribune

Coming on Aug 31st On DVD and VHS "The Passion of Christ" Own it Today!

[Porce]

If evolution the way textbooks tell it is hard, cold fact, then you'd wonder why evolutionists are so aggressive and argumentative to prove that they're right. I'd think facts would speak for themselves.

Aw dude you can't be serious. Not believing in evolution at this point is like not believing in car engines - whether you've observed it or not, the effects are pretty bloody evident!

I didn't exactly say I don't believe in evolution. I believe in microevolution, or variation within species, but as far as that whole "life started in a pond of chemicles 5 billion years ago" thing goes I don't buy it.

[AwallaceUNC]

*Sigh*. Perhaps I should stop sleeping, so I can keep up with the replies, lol. I'll reply to this, but then I'm getting some lunch!!!!!

Well, prove that.

You only have "god's word" (i.e. the bible) that he or she is the creator (or as you might say, your faith in that word). Well, I am saying that I am god and I have the text to prove it. So by questioning me as god, you are undergoing the same process as you would do reading the bible. You are taking my text and adding your interpretation (which seems to be based largely on your own beliefs in another text).

So, this brings us full circle back to the bible interpretation question. You originally said in regards to the bible "I don't think you should interpret it at all, but rather, just read it as it is written." Well, here you have been given a choice - your god's words (in your bible) and my god (me). However, you have chosen to interpret YOUR bible as the correct answer. If you were to take the holy word as written, you should accept all holy words and not just the one you choose to believe.

Also, about 5 pages back you also said:

Christians hardly have the right to submit God to literary criticism. You certainly have the right to question it, though; hopefully it will lead you to God. If not, though, be prepared to accept the consequences for questioning too long. Then there's the worst choice of all, not believing or question, but simply ignoring.

By choosing not to believe my text - or those of Judaism, Islam etc - you have 'simply ignored' a whole stack of faiths. You have submitted my claims to questioning, and you have nothing more than your own faith to assure you that your text is any better than mine, or any other text mentioned. By your own admission, simply ignoring is the worst choice of all. But you have no problem with simply ignoring Islam or Judaism (or my religion, were I to found one) simply because it is not your own. Is it that hard to believe, then, that you COULD be wrong? Or if your faith is not wrong, could it not be possible that other faiths have equal access to god?

The subject at hand is interpreting The Bible, which I do not. Rejecting Islam or Loomism hardly effects the way that I read the Bible. I reject these religions, their texts, their gods, everything. On what basis do I reject them? Faith. Faith in God and Christianity. A literal faith in the Bible. I'm not "taking your text and interpreting it" - I'm rejecting your text, and you as a god. Now faith may not be an acceptable or logical explanation to you, but that's the basis.

By stating that your faith is the only true one, you have contradicted yourself. You are interpreting both my words, the words of the other religions and the words of your own religion and (hopefully) making a choice based on that, and your own faith.

Where does interpretation enter in? There's no disputing that I reject other religions based on faith alone. I don't interpret their words, I reject them. I'm not concerned with how they are read or understood. I am only concerned with the Bible, which I do not interpret.

The only other alternatives are that your religion has either brainwashed you or you are simply prejudiced against those religions that are not your own. Far be it for me to make such an accusation in a civilized debate, so I can only assume that you are making your own interpretation of the bible based on the teachings of your faith (which I have not yet asked you specifically about yet). Thus, the bible MUST be open to interpretation, because by choosing ANY path based on the teachings of god/the bible, you are making an interpretive choice that guides you.

On what do you base this assumption? How is it that believing that Christianity is the true path, based on what the Bible literally says, is an intepretation? There's nothing intepretive about my following the Bible, and nothing intepretive about my rejecting other holy texts and religions.

Of course, one can get into arguments about the fact that Mohammed emerged from a cave with a rewritten account of history that conveniently gave him a claim to global rule, with no witnesses (something that can't be said of Jesus), but such objective arguments don't matter, as faith is enough. For anyone interested in an objective take on it, though, I recommend The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel, an atheist journalist who set out to disprove God and the Christian claim once and for all.

And feel free to ask about my faith any time.

Anyway, Aaron...I don't see how you can enjoy reading the Bible if you can't even think about what you are reading. It's almost as if there was no point.

Where did I say that I don't even think when I read? Hopefully if these 7 pages have demonstrated nothing else, they have demonstrated that I think. There's a difference between interpeting and thinking. To interpret (again, as I definied it very early on, because you can get into semantics debates all day long) something is to translate or find the meaning in what is there. But it already says something. It's in black and white, when read literally. No searches for symbolism, no questioning of "What is this trying to say?" is needed. Interpretation only comes into play when someone has difficult agreeing with or accepting what is already written there.

You as a Christian fundamentalist, do have a blind faith...

Again, there's nothing blinding about it. But I know what you mean by the expression, so I digress.

But I ask you, wouldn't you like to have a faith in a God who believes in science? If God created us in his own image, shouldn't he also be proud of the great achievements science has given us? Science has helped us save many lifes and rid the world of terrible diseases. Science has helped us discover more in the world and explore the solar system. Science has even helped create new ideas and encourage us to spread our imagination.

Who said God hates science?? He loves it. He invented it! But the way you phrased it is important, my faith lies in God, not in science. Science is a tool we are given. I'm all for saving lives, ridding the world of diseases, discoveries, explorations, new ideas, and imagination, so long as none of them are misused for sin.

I do understand though, that there are some bad things people have done with science such as create nuclear weapons or C4 type bombs. But like you said, man can have a bad influence on things. Churches and religion is man-made. Priests are men and not God, and can spread the "word of God" in terrible ways and create war.

I totally agree.

But your Bible tells us that God comes before man and that man-made discoveries and ideas are nothing but sin.

No it doesn't. The point is not to put your faith in man, and not to use discoveries and ideas for sin. That hardly applies to most science.

Your God came to Earth as a Jew, was tortured, and then spread Christianity? I don't understand.

This is something both you and Loomis brought up, so I want to address it here. I do not reject the texts of Judaism, or the God of Judaism. All Christians are Jews by faith, but completed Jews. God made a covenant with Abraham, in which He promised to bless and anoint his bloodline. Abraham's son was Isaac, Isaac's son was Jacob, who was renamed Israel, which is Hebrew for "struggles for God." That bloodline- the Jewish bloodline- continued all the way down to Jesus. The Messiah had to come from that bloodline. He came to fulfill Judaism- the Messiah is the missing piece to their faith. Christianity and Judaism do not conflict, Christianity is what Judaism became when the Messiah came. Modern-day Jews are those who still haven't accepted that Jesus was that Messiah, they still await the coming Messiah.

So I ask you, which would you choose? Blind faith for people who have to believe the Bible is right, or science and faith that is for everyone and will always progress? [/quote]

Neither. My faith isn't blinding, and it is for everyone. It doesn't need to progress because it is universal and eternal, even as a constant. We don't have to believe the Bible is right- I'm not sure what you were implying by that- we do believe in it.

A world that will stay the same as the Bible for millions of years, or a world that will change just like schoolbooks are changed with new discovery?

What do you mean by the world will stay the same as the Bible? And why do you feel discovery is admonished by Christians?

A God who rejects what man creates, or a god who is proud of what good comes from humans?

God rejects sin. If it is good, He does not reject it.

A god who values righteousness, or one that will damn you to Hell for having it even if you don't believe Jesus was the savior or never heard of Him.

God does value righteousness, but it is not the focus. Why should it be? Salvation and love are the keys to life, not righteousness. All the good deeds and good intentions in life really don't amount to much. And we've been through the "never heard of Him" thing several times already. The important thing is to choose to accept Jesus. If you haven't had that opportunity, the Word promises that you are not held accountable for it. Jesus is also promised not to return until the Word has been preached in every country and corner of the world.

Because I can tell you, a lot of the people involved in creating the Christian religion have the same faith as you do in believing in the same God, but according to you...is alright as long as they have the common belief that Jesus is the way.

I don't understand what you are saying from the elipsis on. People didn't create Christianity, Jesus did. People did create organized religion, though.

Aw dude you can't be serious. Not believing in evolution at this point is like not believing in car engines - whether you've observed it or not, the effects are pretty bloody evident!

Not a very fair statement. First, you must realize that even what would seem to be scientific proof does not take precedent over faith, in the eyes of those who have it. To speak of Christians as ignorant neanderthals isn't very kind. And while some scientific evidence does exist to support evolution, there is evidence to support all sort of claims to creation. The point is that it remains a theory, not a proven fact.

And now on to Dacp and Netty. Dacp, you make some good points. Netty, I agree with you that I don't really see rape in particular becoming any more acceptable (but then none of us really know, do we? sort of a moot argument). Speaking from a Christian standpoint, though, morality and Godliness is prophesied to go only downhill from here to the end. As a whole, moral standards (in America and worldwide) have declined sharply even within the last 50 years. Take pedophilia, for example, which certainly is a form of rape. It becomes more and more accepted all the time (in America, at least, I'm not sure about the rest of the world). We even allow virtually simulated child pornography, and there's a grassroots movement for accepting pedophilia. Granted, that's just one selected case study, but it's to say that I think Dacp's point is well-taken, even if the example of rape isn't.

-Aaron