All the books of the OT are Jewish books, too!

Anyway...that's what you say now. But, it was considered to be the word of God for longer than you and I have been alive by many who called themselves Christians. And, as I said, the Ethiopian Orthodox CHRISTIAN Church still considers it to be. How can you be so sure that you are right, and they are wrong. You're a Christian, and they are Christians. I would also point out that many of the books in the Bible do not mention Jesus. Are you saying that they shouldn't be in the Bible, either?

But, once again, you're making my point for me. You say one thing, other Christians say something else...meanwhile "Dad" just keeps driving, saying nothing. You'd think he could at least speak up and tell us which holy books are his official holy books.

You know, Rooster, I am always blown away by the depth of understanding that your posts bring to these discussions. You are a master at developing a complex and nuanced argument.

Here's an equally complex and nuanced reply:
Zeus could kick the living **** out of Jesus. If he could spare the time. After all, all those comely women aren't going to boink themselves.

Deal with it.

Mmm, not really. A rhino is not a unicorn.
See, for example:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/03/29/did-unicorns-co-exist-with-humans-yes-but-they-were-just-rhinos/

Of course, I did note that you put quotation marks around the word "unicorns," so I am assuming that you are implying that these ancient rhinos were the basis of the unicorn legend, and that therefore, in a sense, unicorns did exist. If so, I have to agree that that is a plausible theory.

That said, I probably gave you the wrong impression when I quoted the Bible verses about unicorns, anyway. I wasn't saying that since the Bible refers to unicorns, and unicorns are mythical animals, that that proves the Bible is wrong. I only posted those quotes because Lazarus mentioned these mythical animals, and I thought it ironic that he mentioned them in a thread where we were discussing the Bible and I knew that the Bible referred to them.

My guess is that the translators of the KJV needed a word to describe a large, four-footed, horned animal, and they picked "unicorn" because that was a term for such a creature that most people at the time were familiar with. I don't think the animal in question was really a unicorn. (BTW-The Strong's definition of the Hebrew word in question is "wild ox.")

Well, the degree of merit one grants them should be based on logic and common sense, as far as I'm concerned. (Otherwise, anyone can claim anything.) And, as I have been demonstrating, these stories don't hold up very well to logical scrutiny. Granted, that doesn't automatically mean that they are false, but I think it should cause us to seriously question their accuracy.

After all, truth (Regardless of its source.) is truth. It should be able to withstand logical scrutiny.

All that said, would I be correct in assuming that, if Lazarus did claim he could fly (Thanks to Jesus), you would not give much merit his claims?

No doubt! Cowboy kinda' reminds me of Tom (Loki) Hiddleston.

You're welcome, Sir. And, I appreciate the fact that you have extended the same cordiality and respect to me. :)

No, he hasn't. What we have is a collection of ancient writings that translators have to translate for us, as most of us cannot read Hebrew and Greek, that claim to be speaking for him.

Furthermore, as you probably know, there was much controversy in the early days regarding which books were going to be included in the canon. In fact, the debates over which books to include in the canon went on for much longer than you and I have even been alive. And, there still isn't one definitive version. After all, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Bibles are all different. That adds another layer of uncertainty. How does one even determine which collection of books to accept?

On this topic, consider this: The Book of Enoch was one of the most highly attested books in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church still consider it canonical, and the canonical book of Jude quotes from it. Yet, it is not a part of the Bible canon. Sounds like we have a real clear picture of what God wanted us to know. Not.

Going back to my example again-We wouldn't expect that father driving the car to scribble down a note, written in Chinese, that explains what he actually said, toss it on the floor of the car, and then expect his kids to notice it, pick it up, and figure out how to read Chinese, before killing each other.

No, we would expect him to open his mouth and communicate with his children in a clear and understandable manner exactly what he wanted them to know.

I expect the same from an All-Knowing and All-Wise God.

Those questions miss the point, but I will nevertheless answer them with a question of my own: How much less merit, then, should extraordinary claims made two thousand years ago have?

I'll add to this off-topic part of the discussion that I, too, have little family left, and even less friends. So, it's unanimous. Maybe it's because we are on a dating site, debating philosophy and religion! Just kidding.
FWIW-I respect, and like, both of you, and wish you both the best. I suppose we could be cyber-friends, at least.

Ah, so the purpose of this life is to suffer for God. Endure all the pain and anguish, while still loving and obeying this cosmic-level deadbeat dad.
And you call that "love?" Once again, you describe an unloving god as well as I can.

No offense, but it is my thought that what you perceive of as God's presence is merely a case of your mind telling you what you want to hear. But, let's just say you're right. If you really have felt God's presence, then you at least have some reason for believing what you believe. But, what about all the people like me, who sincerely worshiped this god for decades, yet never felt anything? What about all the people out there who suffer, day after day, crying out to this god, who never feel anything...or hear anything...or receive any relief. What makes you, and some of the other people that I've debated this topic with who make similar claims of feeling God's presence or hearing him speak to them, so special? Why do you guys get "Damscus road" stuff, and the rest of us don't? In addition to the fact that there is an unstated conceit contained in these claims in many cases (i.e. "Well, I guess I'm just more holy than you are. That's why God helped me find my car keys, while at the same time letting your wife die of cancer." I'm not accusing you of that. You haven't acted that way thus far. But I have actually witnessed exchanges very similar to my example.), it is also quite unfair for an omnipresent god, who supposedly loves his children, to make his presence felt by some and not by others.

You say you "choose" to follow God, and that if he made a grand appearance, that would change; that we would have to. I'm sorry, but isn't that what most Christians believe is going to happen at some point anyway? If so...if that is the ultimate solution that God is going to employ at some point...why wait?! If it's the thing to do, then do it already! End the needless fighting and suffering.

That said, I wasn't thinking of that kind of action on his part anyway. Going back to my illustration of the man driving the car while his children fight in the back seat-We would expect this man to do something before his children kill each other, right? However, we would NOT expect him to pull over and kill the children who are incorrect about what he instructed them to do, while leaving alive the one(s) who are correct. No, what we would expect him to do is to open his damn mouth and tell the children who is correct, thus ending the argument by removing the reason for the argument. That's what I mean that God could do; open his mouth and state for the record who is right. Then, it would still be up to all of us to decide if we want to toe his line or not. But, at least we would all know for certain, without needing to have it explained to us by middlemen who all say something different, where his line is.

I reject your assertion anyway. For one thing, according to the Bible, Israel received Yahweh's commands straight from the horse's mouth, or at least from one of his angels, yet they still chose whether or not they wanted to obey him. So, just because he overcomes his shyness and speaks up, that doesn't mean that we no longer have a choice.

Of course, the argument can be made that none of us really has a choice anyway since, as Lazarus said, our choices are:

1.Serve God.
2. Don't serve God. Get obliterated. Or burn in Hell. (Depending on which middleman who are speaking to.)

Finally, consider this:The angels are heavenly beings, superior to we lowly humans in every way. Right?
Well, according to the Bible, vast numbers of them (Revelation seems to be saying that it was a third of them, as you no doubt know.) rebelled against God. This, despite the fact that they never had to suffer with infirmities, starvation, illness, or any number of things that go hand in hand with being human. Furthermore, they never had to suffer any of those things while at the same time having to wonder whether or not God even exists! They knew full well of his existence, having been in his presence. They also knew what he was like better than any of us ever can. They knew whether or not he always keeps his promises, for instance.
And, yet...many, many of them rebelled.

So, I maintain that it is unfair, and unloving, for God to demand that we lesser beings, who have so much less to go on than his angelic sons did, to credulously accept the muddled, boring, convoluted, and inconsistent writings of ancient primitives as HIS WORD; and follow whichever version of its story we may have been taught, by whichever middleman that taught it to us, unquestioningly.

There it is, right there. Well said, Lazarus.

If he exists, he is like a man driving a car while his children fight with each other in the back seat over something he instructed them to do. And, he continues driving along obliviously as his children's arguing turns violent and they kill each other. But, he says nothing the whole time.

Think of all the arguing and violence in the world that stems from arguments over who's version of Skydaddy is the correct one. Not just between differing religions, but between different sects of the same religion. (Catholics and Protestants, anyone?) Meanwhile, the one person in all the universe who could end it sits on his cloud and remains strangely silent.

Oh well. Perhaps he is preoccupied with something. Like whittling. Or playing Grand Theft Cherub on his GodBox. :P

Well, let me just say that I am very sorry to hear that you yourself are disabled. And, I salute you for maintaining a positive outlook, and for trying to help others in any way you can.

No problem. It was just a guess.:)
Well, I wouldn't get too worked up about that story just yet. Anything coming out of North Korea is at best suspect. Here's a couple of brief articles you might want to check out:
http://www.livescience.com/25208-real-story-north-korea-unicorn.html
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/30/unicorns-existence-proven-says-north-korea/

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I missed any mention of actual unicorn remains in the grave.

Jesus, possibly. The Greek sentence structure allows for that reading. I realize that it's difficult for you to consider that, as it doesn't put God in a very good light, but don't blame me; I didn't write the passage. Let alone write it in an ambiguous way that could be interpreted in this fashion.



I agree. Please note that I also said "or, at least, allow."



The fact that you can ask this question demonstrates what I said earlier about how religion skews ones perception. How can an All-Powerful, All-Loving entity do nothing to end the suffering of sick and diseased people?
And, how can you defend said entity?



We'll see. (No pun intended.) But, why wait? He could cure blindness with but a thought, right? It's not loving to withhold relief from his children, that he supposedly loves, when it would be so easy for him to provide it.



That's assuming, of course, we actually have the opportunity to see eternity. That's another extraordinary claim. Have you any extraordinary evidence to support it?



OMG! Did you really just type that?! That's almost as bad as claiming that David's son was better off dying as an infant.

Well, I already have been, throughout this debate. But, I will continue to do so, for as long as I have the time.
And, yes, I agree that there is no evidence that is 100% proof of anything. We established that already. That said, most of us have fairly equivalent standards for quantifying the relative strength or weakness of evidence, as long as we have no bias for or against said evidence.
Which, again, was my point with the Ra illustration.

For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual.

However, if he also said that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him and empowered him to perform this feat in order to prove to him that his atheist philosophy was wrong, I daresay that, while you would still be highly skeptical of his claim, your skepticism would be slightly less than before, because of your personal belief that Jesus can do pretty much anything. So, your bias would affect how you would weigh his evidence, even if only slightly in this case.

My apologies, but I don't see how your assertion addresses the point of this thread.
Or, even what your point is, for that matter.
Could you clarify it?

Well, Lazarus, it just so happens that the Bible does refer to unicorns and dragons!

Job 39:9-12

"9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?"

Psalm 29:6

"6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn."

Isaiah 34:7

"7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."

Isaiah 27:1

"27 In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."

And, there are actually more verses that mention dragons, but I didn't feel like listing them all.

Oh, here's a bonus mythological creature mentioned in the Bible for you:

Isaiah 13:21

"21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."

Cowboy will probably now tell me that this was just symbolic language, or a translation issue and that the unicorns mentioned weren't really unicorns, but possibly rhinos, or wild oxen, as many apologists do. But I couldn't resist mentioning these passages when I saw your post. Oh, and I should mention that, regardless of how some apologists want to explain away these passages, there are some fundamentalists who defend some of these passages as actually being legit, as translated.

Yes, Sir. I read that one, too.

I don't imagine we are going to come to much of an agreement on this point, and I would just as soon move on to another example, so I'll just say that my thought on this example is that, while God certainly had the right to choose who he wanted to invite to his special party, barring people with deformities wasn't very loving. (Unless there actually were some good reasons, other than their appearance, for so doing.)

I am keeping the verses in context. The verses you just quoted, which open the chapter in question, warn against specific acts that would bring defilement, or uncleanness, upon the priests, such as touching a dead body. (As mentioned in verse 1.)The disabled people in question were already disabled, so these warnings to avoid doing anything that would cause defilement didn't apply to their already present disabilities.

These verses also do not state that the disabled people who were here prohibited from priestly duties were defiled, and that that was why they were prohibited. It was all about appearances.

For example, allow me to quote from the Jamieson-Faust-Brown Commentary:

"As visible things exert a strong influence on the minds of men, any physical infirmity or malformation of body in the ministers of religion, which disturbs the associations or excites ridicule, tends to detract from the weight and authority of the sacred office. Priests laboring under any personal defect were not allowed to officiate in the public service; they might be employed in some inferior duties about the sanctuary but could not perform any sacred office."