100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Also there was some mention of "Abras cheering section"? What is that all about? I feel he provided a superior argument and Im not sure who else agrees? Tribo is kind of down the middle and feels it was a tie. Its not like everyone is against spider or for Abra as far as I see it. Unless Im missing something. Spider might have members that are annoyed with or dislike him on a personal level but that can not be held against him as far as his debate is concerned as long as he recognizes all rules. Arguably he has where Abra is concerned in this latest. Krimsa; It comes from the numerous topics that have been discussed by a core group of posters on these threads for over a year. There are no new posts on this thread - just rewording of posts that we have all been writing over and over again - ad infinitum for pages and pages on this forum. Please - forgive us. Often it is difficult for those who are new to the forums to realize that there is an ongoing "discussion, argument. war" - call it what you will - between what very often becomes two camps. A few sit on the sidelines (as you've noted about Tribo) but there is a fairly discernable set of "groups" if you will. Spider and Abra have been "in battle" (for lack of a better phrazing) for some time now. It usually boils down to "those who side with Abra" and "those with Spider". Though it really is not that simplistic. That would be the "something you are missing" when you start to sense that there is a "tone" developing under the surface of some posts. Despite this - you will notice that there isn't any blood dripping from the topics - so eventually, we get over it, and move onto the next "battlefield". Essentially - it's because none of us have a life. 
Welcome to the battle by the way. Enjoy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will be examining this one very closely and have my say when I have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eljay:
no where in scriptures does it premise that God is "all-reasonable". tribo: if god is all everything else, perfect in every way - which is stated - then it only follows that he would HAVE TO BE "all reasonable"he cannot be all everything else and lack in one or two areas and still ber "perfect" biblically. Really. What kind of an argument is that Eljay? God is all-wise, all-knowing, all-loving, all-merciful, all-perfect in every way,... except, he's not reasonable????? It's pretty sad when the only defense for the scriptures is to say that God is unreasonable. 
We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here I see. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also there was some mention of "Abras cheering section"? What is that all about? I feel he provided a superior argument and Im not sure who else agrees? Tribo is kind of down the middle and feels it was a tie. Its not like everyone is against spider or for Abra as far as I see it. Unless Im missing something. Spider might have members that are annoyed with or dislike him on a personal level but that can not be held against him as far as his debate is concerned as long as he recognizes all rules. Arguably he has where Abra is concerned in this latest. Krimsa; It comes from the numerous topics that have been discussed by a core group of posters on these threads for over a year. There are no new posts on this thread - just rewording of posts that we have all been writing over and over again - ad infinitum for pages and pages on this forum. Please - forgive us. Often it is difficult for those who are new to the forums to realize that there is an ongoing "discussion, argument. war" - call it what you will - between what very often becomes two camps. A few sit on the sidelines (as you've noted about Tribo) but there is a fairly discernable set of "groups" if you will. Spider and Abra have been "in battle" (for lack of a better phrazing) for some time now. It usually boils down to "those who side with Abra" and "those with Spider". Though it really is not that simplistic. That would be the "something you are missing" when you start to sense that there is a "tone" developing under the surface of some posts. Despite this - you will notice that there isn't any blood dripping from the topics - so eventually, we get over it, and move onto the next "battlefield". Essentially - it's because none of us have a life.
Welcome to the battle by the way. Enjoy. eljay Essentially - it's because none of us have a life.  
actually i have one, but it's worse than this rght now -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Sun 08/03/08 06:00 PM
|
|
I will be """""examining""""""" this one very closely and have my say when I have. hmmmm??? - examining?? wanna play doctor???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay wrote:
Essentially - it's because none of us have a life.
Finally! Something I can agree with!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 08/03/08 06:06 PM
|
|
I figured as much Eljay but thanks for explaining
I’m kind of a new comer and you guys have no women, nor any kind of earth religion interjection (I read a book that’s it) so at least it’s a new perspective. Let me just premise that with I’m not a Witch, nor will I sink if thrown in a river.
Oh Im sorry there is JB and a couple others. I had to look back at other threads. Just not as many women posters in the religion forum I meant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
on a more personal level, it would be as my changing my mind on how to discipline my children - if the way i started out with disciplining them was not working, then would i be changing my character if i started grounding them instead of spanking them? Or visa versa? am I myself changing my self, or just the way I'm deciding to deal with there disobedience? If others see no personal change in me then i have to conclude that i am just as i was before changing how i "deal with the problem". The problem was dealt with but i did not change in any way.
I disagree. In his scenario you've changed your behavior based on what you had 'learned' about what works and what doesn't work. To apply your scenario here, would imply that God is indeed 'learning' how to deal with humanity. He changes his tactics based on what he has 'learned'. That's a no-no for a God Sam. Because if God changed all the time based on new information then we couldn't not depend on God to be the same tomorrow as he is today. So yes, I'm in disagreement with your analogy of God to a human parent who learns from experience. That is not a good analogy for a God IMHO. That merely suggests that God is no different from a human in the way he learns about how to deal with things. Now i know Abra is talking of a consistent non changing being and maybe won't except my premises here, since mine are of a non omniscient being, but of myself, yet i can't help but see that god himself did not "change" - only the way in which he dealt or handled the situation.
I understand what you are saying here Sam, but I must disagree in the case of a God. All this would be saying is that God is always benevolent in spirit and he never changes in that regard. But he could still changes the way he does things. But why would he change the way he does things if that's the case? The only reason would be similar to what you've described. He's trying different things in the hope of learning how to become a good parent. But that flies in the face of God being all-knowing and all-wise. That would suggest that God's benevolence never changes, but he has no clue what he's doing so he keeps trying different things. If that's the case, then we have no clue what God might try tomorrow. A trial and error God? That doesn't work IMHO. If God is all-knowing and all-wise, and doesn't change, then there's no reason for him to change how he deals with humans. But according to the Bible he did change the way he deals with man after the flood. That's a contradiction in the Bible. That's my assertion. If we're going to allow that God can change how he deals with humanity then why even bother claiming God is unchanging? Why not just own up to the fact that God can change anytime he feels like it. Abra - though you bring up valid points - I disagree that God has to "learn" about what He is going to do to man based on what He choses to do. He knew before the creation of time that Jesus would be going to the cross. I can't say I know why He chose this course of action for His creation - just that He did. So - this idea that God is ever going to "change" His course of action - is absurd for a being that is Omniscient. But it is Man who is inconsistant in his behavior and his essense. Not God. God's changing the way He is dealing with Man should be consistant in the way that He has expressed He will - not in the way man anticipates He will. If it was always God's will to destroy man once - then establish a means for man to redeem himself - who are you to say He's "wrong"? And what of those who perished in the flood? Where are they now Abra? I'll bet you have nothing but conjecture here. But I'll suggest that God knows exactly where they are. For all you know - they are in heaven with him right now. Then what happens to your theory that He's inconsistant? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God is never very consistent. He’s also a little bit warlike and full of vengeance at times. That’s what I’m noticing about his overriding character thus far. I side with Abra on this. Also, who here believes that "god" wrote the bible? He's like a mystical being? How is he writing anything? I thought it was common knowledge it was a bunch of stories written by different people. That would also explain some of the discrepancies. the christains don't claim that god personally picked up a pen/pencil/quill and wrote the words. what they do claim is that god directly "inspired" men to write down what he was either saying to them personally or in some way communicating the info directly to them. but unfortunately, this is true of all the medditerrainian religions or monotheistic religions and if not all the rest. my biggest problem is with God having human emotions, every god ever written about acts like man emotionally, how can you thern seperate one out and say - yeah but this ones for real - the others are all lies. 
Is it God who has human emotions - or humans who are given a glimpse of the emotions God already had? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can’t agree with your explanation that it has anything to do with health. I can’t know for certain of course but based on Leviticus and what the words seem to indicate: "then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." They seem to be implying that the woman is being asked to separate herself from others. That doesn’t sound to me like it has anything to do with health or medical concerns as you are suggesting. "And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled." Also if this had anything to do with the mother’s health, why double the time for a "maiden" infant and why all these atonement payments to the priests? This guy is milking these poor peasants for turtles and lambs for all intensive purposes so she can adequately “cleanse” herself. I have to agree with you on this,... it clearly state: "she shall touch no hallowed thing" She's clearly being thought of as being 'spiritually unclean', not medically unclean. Of, course this whole discussion is an aside to the main topic. But just as a side note, the Bible is clearly male-chuvanitic in many parts. It clearly states that women are not permitted to speak in public on important matters, and must only discuss these things with their husbands in private. It doesn't say what single women are supposed to do. But they way they bought and sold wives in biblical days there probably weren't too many unmarried women around. They daughters were almost a commodity. They could be sold or traded for sheep or oxen, or whatever. . 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eljay:
no where in scriptures does it premise that God is "all-reasonable". tribo: if god is all everything else, perfect in every way - which is stated - then it only follows that he would HAVE TO BE "all reasonable"he cannot be all everything else and lack in one or two areas and still ber "perfect" biblically. Really. What kind of an argument is that Eljay? God is all-wise, all-knowing, all-loving, all-merciful, all-perfect in every way,... except, he's not reasonable????? It's pretty sad when the only defense for the scriptures is to say that God is unreasonable.
We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here I see.
Reasonable is a subjective observation, Abra. The level of it is established by the one who is usally asking for some measure of it. There's no "reaonable" with God. It's absolutes. Right - or wrong. Period. God is not mocked by "reasonableness" - get it right, and there's no need to even establish a definition for the word. Stop trying to bring God down to the level of humans. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read every last post here......
This is my conclusion....... Spider.......I applaud you for trying....it would of been good but like with everything in the religion threads....some people just can't follow simple rules..... The winner imo People 0 God WINNER WINNER WINNER Becoming A Woman Of Excellence A woman of excellence Is what I long to be Filled with your godly wisdom So it is part of me A woman of integrity No matter what I face Standing up for righteousness And for your saving grace A woman of destiny Living out your plan Knowing where you’d have me walk Being guided by your hand A woman of promise Standing on your word Holding on to all the truths While carrying out your work A woman of compassion For the ones in the dark Those that do not know your love And have darkness in their hearts A woman that will never Compromise the faith With what the world may offer But will keep the narrow way A woman who loves Jesus And will only follow Him Gladly to give up the world So His light can shine within Lord this is my earnest prayer As a daughter by your grace Grow in me these qualities As I walk with you in faith |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can’t agree with your explanation that it has anything to do with health. I can’t know for certain of course but based on Leviticus and what the words seem to indicate: "then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." They seem to be implying that the woman is being asked to separate herself from others. That doesn’t sound to me like it has anything to do with health or medical concerns as you are suggesting. "And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled." Also if this had anything to do with the mother’s health, why double the time for a "maiden" infant and why all these atonement payments to the priests? This guy is milking these poor peasants for turtles and lambs for all intensive purposes so she can adequately “cleanse” herself. Well - why are new borns brought into sterile environments right away if it isn't for health reasons? One way to insure that infection will not set in - is to separate oneself from the source of it - which is often others. This may or may not be the reason - but equating "unclean" with something demeaning would directly contradict the whole idea of increase and multiply. It would seem more like a contradiction in perception of the interpretation of terms - than a contradiction in scriptural relevance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Sun 08/03/08 06:22 PM
|
|
I figured as much Eljay but thanks for explaining I’m kind of a new comer and you guys have no women, nor any kind of earth religion interjection (I read a book that’s it) so at least it’s a new perspective. Let me just premise that with I’m not a Witch, nor will I sink if thrown in a river.
Oh Im sorry there is JB and a couple others. I had to look back at other threads. Just not as many women posters in the religion forum I meant. There's a whole gang of us... You'll soon be introduced to Feralcat, Britty, Wouldee, Kerryo will drop in every now and then, Voile should be around before long - though I think he's keeping up with his own thread - Smiless is due to jump in here Lonely Walker should be along soon - the list goes on. But there's no dues to pay - so play as long as you wish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eljay: no where in scriptures does it premise that God is "all-reasonable". tribo: if god is all everything else, perfect in every way - which is stated - then it only follows that he would HAVE TO BE "all reasonable"he can not be all everything else and lack in one or two areas and still be concidered: "perfect" biblically. I refer you to my post to Abra on being "reasonable". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read every last post here...... This is my conclusion....... Spider.......I applaud you for trying....it would of been good but like with everything in the religion threads....some people just can't follow simple rules..... The winner imo People 0 God WINNER WINNER WINNER Becoming A Woman Of Excellence A woman of excellence Is what I long to be Filled with your godly wisdom So it is part of me A woman of integrity No matter what I face Standing up for righteousness And for your saving grace A woman of destiny Living out your plan Knowing where you’d have me walk Being guided by your hand A woman of promise Standing on your word Holding on to all the truths While carrying out your work A woman of compassion For the ones in the dark Those that do not know your love And have darkness in their hearts A woman that will never Compromise the faith With what the world may offer But will keep the narrow way A woman who loves Jesus And will only follow Him Gladly to give up the world So His light can shine within Lord this is my earnest prayer As a daughter by your grace Grow in me these qualities As I walk with you in faith Wow - there's a surprise post. Hello dear, where have you been? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God is never very consistent. He’s also a little bit warlike and full of vengeance at times. That’s what I’m noticing about his overriding character thus far. I side with Abra on this. Also, who here believes that "god" wrote the bible? He's like a mystical being? How is he writing anything? I thought it was common knowledge it was a bunch of stories written by different people. That would also explain some of the discrepancies. the christains don't claim that god personally picked up a pen/pencil/quill and wrote the words. what they do claim is that god directly "inspired" men to write down what he was either saying to them personally or in some way communicating the info directly to them. but unfortunately, this is true of all the medditerrainian religions or monotheistic religions and if not all the rest. my biggest problem is with God having human emotions, every god ever written about acts like man emotionally, how can you thern seperate one out and say - yeah but this ones for real - the others are all lies.
Is it God who has human emotions - or humans who are given a glimpse of the emotions God already had? hmm? less see - god was here before us - thus god had emotions first - thus god when making man gave us the same emotions he had and called it "GOOD" Is it? are they? can you or do you believe emotions such as god has - good? well less look at some - hate?, Anger?, Jealousy?, etc?, I'm not going to make a list of all the emotions that the bible said he had or showed, but there are quite a few, and they are not put in a light of being GOOD things he was doing or saying or "feeling". Now that would be an argument from inside the text. HISTORICALLY - name me any religion before god's dealings with Israel where the god(s) were not doing the same? Infact - name me any religion that has a god that does not act in like manner - and i mean a self declared god - not bhudda and such, they never said they were gods, there followers turned them into worshipful diety. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God is never very consistent. He’s also a little bit warlike and full of vengeance at times. That’s what I’m noticing about his overriding character thus far. I side with Abra on this. Also, who here believes that "god" wrote the bible? He's like a mystical being? How is he writing anything? I thought it was common knowledge it was a bunch of stories written by different people. That would also explain some of the discrepancies. the christains don't claim that god personally picked up a pen/pencil/quill and wrote the words. what they do claim is that god directly "inspired" men to write down what he was either saying to them personally or in some way communicating the info directly to them. but unfortunately, this is true of all the medditerrainian religions or monotheistic religions and if not all the rest. my biggest problem is with God having human emotions, every god ever written about acts like man emotionally, how can you thern seperate one out and say - yeah but this ones for real - the others are all lies.
Is it God who has human emotions - or humans who are given a glimpse of the emotions God already had? hmm? less see - god was here before us - thus god had emotions first - thus god when making man gave us the same emotions he had and called it "GOOD" Is it? are they? can you or do you believe emotions such as god has - good? well less look at some - hate?, Anger?, Jealousy?, etc?, I'm not going to make a list of all the emotions that the bible said he had or showed, but there are quite a few, and they are not put in a light of being GOOD things he was doing or saying or "feeling". Now that would be an argument from inside the text. HISTORICALLY - name me any religion before god's dealings with Israel where the god(s) were not doing the same? Infact - name me any religion that has a god that does not act in like manner - and i mean a self declared god - not bhudda and such, they never said they were gods, there followers turned them into worshipful diety. Well - the term "rightious indignaton" comes to mind. Is it "good" or "bad". For man, the response is subjective. The bible states "God hates divorce". Is that bad? Do we say - well Hate is bad, therefore God hating divorce is not a "loving" thing - so the bible can't be true. Maybe we can get Abra to describe the logical fallacies of this - he's the designated Math expert. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay wrote:
Abra - though you bring up valid points - I disagree that God has to "learn" about what He is going to do to man based on what He choses to do. He knew before the creation of time that Jesus would be going to the cross. I can't say I know why He chose this course of action for His creation - just that He did. So - this idea that God is ever going to "change" His course of action - is absurd for a being that is Omniscient. But it is Man who is inconsistant in his behavior and his essense. Not God. God's changing the way He is dealing with Man should be consistant in the way that He has expressed He will - not in the way man anticipates He will. The original idea of the thread is to show why the Bible is consistent or inconsistent. All you seem to want to do is make hypotheical excuses for God. Where in the Bible does it say this was always God's plan to first drown out man and then offer him salvation? That's the whole point Eljay. We aren't supposed to be trying to 'defend God' at all cost by making up speculations. We're simply asking whether or not the Bible is consistent or inconsisent. To "speculate" that God had always known he was going to drown many out man first and then offer him salvation later is pure hypothetical speculation just to try to "defend God". That doesn't come from the Bible at all. Eljay wrote:
If it was always God's will to destroy man once - then establish a means for man to redeem himself - who are you to say He's "wrong"? And what of those who perished in the flood? Where are they now Abra? I'll bet you have nothing but conjecture here. But I'll suggest that God knows exactly where they are. For all you know - they are in heaven with him right now. Then what happens to your theory that He's inconsistant? Again, pure speculation. It doesn't matter. We're not asking whether or not you can sepeculate excuses to "justify" God's changing behavior. God isn't on trial here.
We're simply asking whether or not the Bible is a self-consistent mythology. That's the debate. No one is charging God with being 'wrong'. The assertion is that the Biblical mythology is self-inconsistent in its premises and stories. Nothing more, nothing less. It claims that God is unchanging, yet it's a story about a God who changes the way he deals with humanity. That's my assertion. I'm not "judging" God at all. I'm just looking at a mythology and saying, "This mythology is inconsistent, and contradicts it's premise that God its is unchanging" I'm not thinking about "judging" the biblical God anymore than I would think about "judging" the Greek God Zeus. This isn't about accusing God of being "unfair" or anything at all like that. I'm just asserting that it's a contradiction that a supposedly unchanging God changes the way that he deals with Humanity. That's all I'm asserting. I'm not passing any "judgments" on the mythologcial godhead involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay wrote:
Abra - though you bring up valid points - I disagree that God has to "learn" about what He is going to do to man based on what He choses to do. He knew before the creation of time that Jesus would be going to the cross. I can't say I know why He chose this course of action for His creation - just that He did. So - this idea that God is ever going to "change" His course of action - is absurd for a being that is Omniscient. But it is Man who is inconsistant in his behavior and his essense. Not God. God's changing the way He is dealing with Man should be consistant in the way that He has expressed He will - not in the way man anticipates He will. The original idea of the thread is to show why the Bible is consistent or inconsistent. All you seem to want to do is make hypotheical excuses for God. Where in the Bible does it say this was always God's plan to first drown out man and then offer him salvation? That's the whole point Eljay. We aren't supposed to be trying to 'defend God' at all cost by making up speculations. We're simply asking whether or not the Bible is consistent or inconsisent. To "speculate" that God had always known he was going to drown many out man first and then offer him salvation later is pure hypothetical speculation just to try to "defend God". That doesn't come from the Bible at all. Eljay wrote:
If it was always God's will to destroy man once - then establish a means for man to redeem himself - who are you to say He's "wrong"? And what of those who perished in the flood? Where are they now Abra? I'll bet you have nothing but conjecture here. But I'll suggest that God knows exactly where they are. For all you know - they are in heaven with him right now. Then what happens to your theory that He's inconsistant? Again, pure speculation. It doesn't matter. We're not asking whether or not you can sepeculate excuses to "justify" God's changing behavior. God isn't on trial here.
We're simply asking whether or not the Bible is a self-consistent mythology. That's the debate. No one is charging God with being 'wrong'. The assertion is that the Biblical mythology is self-inconsistent in its premises and stories. Nothing more, nothing less. It claims that God is unchanging, yet it's a story about a God who changes the way he deals with humanity. That's my assertion. I'm not "judging" God at all. I'm just looking at a mythology and saying, "This mythology is inconsistent, and contradicts it's premise that God its is unchanging" I'm not thinking about "judging" the biblical God anymore than I would think about "judging" the Greek God Zeus. This isn't about accusing God of being "unfair" or anything at all like that. I'm just asserting that it's a contradiction that a supposedly unchanging God changes the way that he deals with Humanity. That's all I'm asserting. I'm not passing any "judgments" on the mythologcial godhead involved.
The original intent of Spider's was to claim contradictions - not inconsistancies. When did we shift to inconsistancies. Neith of us knows if God is inconsistant to himself - only to our expectations. You find him inconsistant - I don't. But is the bible "contradictory" due to subjective inconsistancies? |
|
|
|
|
