If Yahweh Is Omnipotent....

[Looking4Answers]

This is another thread where I jumped in on the last page, but I wanted to comment on this:

 

Well God surely had time to spend 40 years on Moses to teach him to believe in 613 laws, which of 603 are rejected by Christians.

 

I find it interesting that so many people throw around the term 613 laws as if it is a fact that there are 613 laws in the Old Testament. I have heard Jews say this and I have heard and read many Christians say this as well (who, undoubtedly, got their information from the Jews). The question is, have any of these people bothered to go through the Old Testament, categorize and count the laws therein? Do people realize that the number of laws (613) is derived from mysticism and not from actually counting what is in the Old Testament? Ancient Judaism says that there are 365 negative commands (thou shalt nots) and the rest (248) supposedly correspond to the supposed parts of the human skeletal system (incorrectly, I might add).

 

Here is a quote from Wikipedia on the subject:

 

Although there have been many attempts to codify and enumerate the commandments contained in the Torah, the traditional view is based on Maimonides' enumeration. The 613 commandments are either "positive commandments" to perform an act (mitzvot aseh) or "negative commandments" to abstain from certain acts (mitzvot lo taaseh). There are 365 negative commandments, corresponding to the number of days in a solar year, and 248 positive commandments, ascribed to the number of bones and significant organs in the human body.[1] Though the number 613 is mentioned in the Talmud, its real significance increased in later medieval rabbinic literature, including many works listing or arranged by the mitzvot.

 

Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_mitzvot

 

So it looks like they came up with the number 613 and then tried to force what they found in the Old Testament to fit into that number. And Christians have been buying into this mystical crap ever since! I was taught it myself in Bible college, heard it from time to time from the pulpit and read it in Christian commentaries. It is all bunk!

 

And, now, back to your regularly scheduled programming ...

[Abiyoyo]

So it looks like they came up with the number 613 and then tried to force what they found in the Old Testament to fit into that number. And Christians have been buying into this mystical crap ever since! I was taught it myself in Bible college, heard it from time to time from the pulpit and read it in Christian commentaries. It is all bunk!

And, now, back to your regularly scheduled programming ...

 

I didn't really. I always knew it was variant. I'm pretty sure Hans does too :wink:

[Guest end3]

I guess I was referring to your post, though truth be told I thought I was addressing YoYo. But remember, lots of my older relatives have died of dementia.

 

My theory is eat a lot of steak and maybe you will die of a heart attack rather than someone feeding you through a straw and changing your adult diaper...lots of butter for the potatoes and be sure an sop the juice with any available bread.. leave the salad alone.

 

Projects are a dime a dozen, if you run out I have a few you can work on. I could keep you busy right up to croaking day, my croaking day that is. Like me olde grandpa useta say, "They's no end to work projects." By the way, have you thought of how you are going to top heaven? I'm mean what is going to be your project end point in the hereafter? If you were a Mormon you could get your own planet and raise a passel of new gods for the universe. Maybe you could get strong enough to kick Yahweh's ass. If I were you I wouldn't go in for that free will shit. It causes too much trouble.

 

Haven't given it any thought past making it through this quagmire...

 

I am cynical. My rose colored glasses broke after we elected that psychopathic pair the second time.

 

Ahh, John Conley..

 

Well what's he waiting for then? There is plenty of evil around for him to rub out right now. He claimed he'd be back before the last disciple died.

 

Sounds relative as I is one.

 

Get happy old man.

[Tabula Rasa]

Yoyo, here's something else to consider: You seem to believe that Jesus isn't the only way to heaven. Well then, perhaps it's just best to default to these three simple tenets: Good thoughts, good words, good deeds. Perhaps, God if "he" exists, doesn't want humanity to meet in mosque, nor temple, nor church, and worship him,but wants us to look after each other. To heal the sick, feed the hungry,help the poor and downtrodden, and oppose the wicked. Perhaps the best worship might be to try to live good lives as best we can.

[hereticzero]

I agree and disagree with you here Hans. I don't think God revealed certain knowledge to man, because even if God spent 10yrs training them about medicines, and airplanes; to what advantage is that. We may have been a different culture altogether, yet i doubt it. Didn't the Egyptians have a moment of airplane knowledge, or thought? Medicines, how would that have worked? Go from manna to antibiotics? What were the primary diseases of then that could've been treated?

 

As far as the inerrant Bible, I agree. It limits the mind.

Well God surely had time to spend 40 years on Moses to teach him to believe in 613 laws, which of 603 are rejected by Christians. What good did that make?

Yoyo: God did not reveal anything to Moses. The Torah (OT) wasn't written until the Jews returned from their Babylonian exile. The stories of Moses, including the laws were written perhaps a thousand years after Moses. The stories were collected just like the NT stories were collected and a vote was made over what books to include. This is where the early Christian 'fathers' got their idea to vote in the books for the NT, maybe? Diseases that could have been treated by God in those days were leprosy, sand fly disease, any number of disease still found there today could have been treated then. There is no proof Moses was a real character, he is as fictional as Iesus. The worst conclusion for Christians to draw is that their holy book is completely true and without error and that is some sort of historical document. It reeks more of historical fiction than it does historical fact.

[Ouroboros]

Yoyo, here's something else to consider: You seem to believe that Jesus isn't the only way to heaven. Well then, perhaps it's just best to default to these three simple tenets: Good thoughts, good words, good deeds. Perhaps, God if "he" exists, doesn't want humanity to meet in mosque, nor temple, nor church, and worship him,but wants us to look after each other. To heal the sick, feed the hungry,help the poor and downtrodden, and oppose the wicked. Perhaps the best worship might be to try to live good lives as best we can.

And maybe God just wants us to be rational and reasonable? Which means agnostics/atheists might have a better chance going to Heaven then mind-fried evangelical preachers.

[Guest end3]

name='chefranden' date='Mar 14 2009, 11:56 AM' post='438294']

 

One of the many intellectual things that led to my eventual de-conversion was the writing of Francis Shaeffer. His advice in evangelism was to pursue your victim's world view to it's absurd ends so that he could see that Jesus was the answer.

 

And you chose absurd reality over absurd hope? Why may I ask, to anybody? Rape, theft, adultry, animal eat animal????? I could go on.

 

the point being, "REALITY IS ABSURD"!

[Abiyoyo]

Yoyo: God did not reveal anything to Moses. The Torah (OT) wasn't written until the Jews returned from their Babylonian exile. The stories of Moses, including the laws were written perhaps a thousand years after Moses. The stories were collected just like the NT stories were collected and a vote was made over what books to include.

 

Fact, that the oldest fragments date to what you say, but that doesn't mean that an original text did not exist, it just did not survive. I personally believe there probably were originals, before the Babylonian exile. Greek gods only have slim accumulation of material, yet it's assumed that it was destroyed, etc.; but it's considered important enough to be in schools?

 

This is where the early Christian 'fathers' got their idea to vote in the books for the NT, maybe?

 

Thats my point Heretic, I would've thought they would have included other writings even though they weren't not very old, like the Books of Adam and Eve. But, they didn't.

 

Diseases that could have been treated by God in those days were leprosy, sand fly disease, any number of disease still found there today could have been treated then. There is no proof Moses was a real character, he is as fictional as Iesus. The worst conclusion for Christians to draw is that their holy book is completely true and without error and that is some sort of historical document. It reeks more of historical fiction than it does historical fact.

 

Maybe so. Do you think the Egyptians dynasty was the 18th or 12th, during Moses time?

[Ouroboros]

the point being, "REALITY IS ABSURD"!

So on one end we have "reality is absurd" and we need a savior, and on the other end we have a "ordered and perfect universe" which supposedly requires a designer. So is reality really absurd if it is perfect and designed? Does it mean absurdity it the same as order? I find those two views contradicting each other. If the world is perfect, then we don't need a savior. But if the world is absurd so we must have a savior, then the world isn't perfect. In other words, either God can't be proven or God can't be a savior.

[Abiyoyo]

Yoyo, here's something else to consider: You seem to believe that Jesus isn't the only way to heaven. Well then, perhaps it's just best to default to these three simple tenets: Good thoughts, good words, good deeds. Perhaps, God if "he" exists, doesn't want humanity to meet in mosque, nor temple, nor church, and worship him,but wants us to look after each other. To heal the sick, feed the hungry,help the poor and downtrodden, and oppose the wicked. Perhaps the best worship might be to try to live good lives as best we can.

And maybe God just wants us to be rational and reasonable? Which means agnostics/atheists might have a better chance going to Heaven then mind-fried evangelical preachers.

 

I agree. I would think that God would at least want to be acknowledged though.

[Abiyoyo]

the point being, "REALITY IS ABSURD"!

So on one end we have "reality is absurd" and we need a savior, and on the other end we have a "ordered and perfect universe" which supposedly requires a designer. So is reality really absurd if it is perfect and designed? Does it mean absurdity it the same as order? I find those two views contradicting each other. If the world is perfect, then we don't need a savior.

But if the world is absurd so we must have a savior, then the world isn't perfect.

In other words, either God can't be proven or God can't be a savior.

 

It is only perfect to humans. The world is not perfect. I think we see everything in this world, the universe, the facts about all these things; and we say it is perfect, and could only have been created by a designer. Yet, we have earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, disease, viruses, and last, humans, which are far from perfect.

 

It is perfect to us because we exist, and continue to exist. I see the world as imperfect, possibly perfect when God created it, yet disrupted over time. I see humans the same way, perfect when created, yet at some point disrupted. The Savior is God's patch to fix the imperfectness of us and the world. My opinion.

[Guest end3]

the point being, "REALITY IS ABSURD"!

So on one end we have "reality is absurd" and we need a savior, and on the other end we have a "ordered and perfect universe" which supposedly requires a designer. So is reality really absurd if it is perfect and designed? Does it mean absurdity it the same as order? I find those two views contradicting each other. If the world is perfect, then we don't need a savior. But if the world is absurd so we must have a savior, then the world isn't perfect. In other words, either God can't be proven or God can't be a savior.

 

I don't know that I stated that the world, et. al. was perfect? As I was saying in shout, many are happy to assign muder, rape, incest, theft, adultery, and animal eat animal to rational? Why?

[Ouroboros]

I agree. I would think that God would at least want to be acknowledged though.

Well, if God is complete and perfect, does he "want" anything? Why would he want to be acknowledged by humans? He is already acknowledged by the angels, and see how bad that turned out. So I stick with the idea that God is just doing a rat-in-the-maze experiment.

 

I don't know that I stated that the world, et. al. was perfect? As I was saying in shout, many are happy to assign muder, rape, incest, theft, adultery, and animal eat animal to rational? Why?

And I didn't say that you stated it. But Christians come here and debate and say that because the world is perfect and ordered, it proves that God exists. So I'm just contrasting two different aspects I keep on hearing from Christians. I hear that from them, and now I hear this from you. Both sides can't be true simultaneous.

 

And I'm not sure what you mean that we assign murder, rape, incest, etc, to rational? Do you mean rationality? That it's rational to murder? Or that there is a rational explanation to why some people are murderous? I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

It is only perfect to humans. The world is not perfect. I think we see everything in this world, the universe, the facts about all these things; and we say it is perfect, and could only have been created by a designer. Yet, we have earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, disease, viruses, and last, humans, which are far from perfect.

 

It is perfect to us because we exist, and continue to exist. I see the world as imperfect, possibly perfect when God created it, yet disrupted over time. I see humans the same way, perfect when created, yet at some point disrupted. The Savior is God's patch to fix the imperfectness of us and the world. My opinion.

So perfection and imperfection are subjective?

[Abiyoyo]

Well, if God is complete and perfect, does he "want" anything? Why would he want to be acknowledged by humans? He is already acknowledged by the angels, and see how bad that turned out. So I stick with the idea that God is just doing a rat-in-the-maze experiment.

 

Maybe. If that were the case, then I would say that eternal life, and perfectness is the prize, for us rats.

So perfection and imperfection are subjective?

 

NO! I'm having flashbacks of the LNC thread!! I am mentally damaged from seeing the word subjective, and objective so many times :wacko_old: But, to answer your question, I would say yes. I think the perfection and imperfection are subjective.

[Guest end3]

I agree. I would think that God would at least want to be acknowledged though.

Well, if God is complete and perfect, does he "want" anything? Why would he want to be acknowledged by humans? He is already acknowledged by the angels, and see how bad that turned out. So I stick with the idea that God is just doing a rat-in-the-maze experiment.

 

I don't know that I stated that the world, et. al. was perfect? As I was saying in shout, many are happy to assign muder, rape, incest, theft, adultery, and animal eat animal to rational? Why?

And I didn't say that you stated it. But Christians come here and debate and say that because the world is perfect and ordered, it proves that God exists. So I'm just contrasting two different aspects I keep on hearing from Christians. I hear that from them, and now I hear this from you. Both sides can't be true simultaneous.

 

And I'm not sure what you mean that we assign murder, rape, incest, etc, to rational? Do you mean rationality? That it's rational to murder? Or that there is a rational explanation to why some people are murderous? I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

It is only perfect to humans. The world is not perfect. I think we see everything in this world, the universe, the facts about all these things; and we say it is perfect, and could only have been created by a designer. Yet, we have earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, disease, viruses, and last, humans, which are far from perfect.

 

It is perfect to us because we exist, and continue to exist. I see the world as imperfect, possibly perfect when God created it, yet disrupted over time. I see humans the same way, perfect when created, yet at some point disrupted. The Savior is God's patch to fix the imperfectness of us and the world. My opinion.

So perfection and imperfection are subjective?

 

My communication skills suck....I would call myself a restorationist Hans, if that helps. I would think Heaven or Gan to be perfect and ordered, not our world. All I was saying was I was finding it somewhat irrational to choose and accept our world/reality, ie. rape, murder etc., as the norm and find acceptance and "happiness" with this understanding.

[Ouroboros]

NO! I'm having flashbacks of the LNC thread!! I am mentally damaged from seeing the word subjective, and objective so many times :wacko_old: But, to answer your question, I would say yes. I think the perfection and imperfection are subjective.

Sorry about that. Well, it means that perfect and imperfect is something in our opinion about the world, not something we can use as an argument to prove for or against a potential God. We see perfection were we want to see it, and we see imperfection were we want to. We are subjective beings, experiencing the world from our inner selves. So really, any argument for or against God are lost in the sea of confused language.

 

My communication skills suck....I would call myself a restorationist Hans, if that helps. I would think Heaven or Gan to be perfect and ordered, not our world. All I was saying was I was finding it somewhat irrational to choose and accept our world/reality, ie. rape, murder etc., as the norm and find acceptance and "happiness" with this understanding.

Well, if you find it irrational, it means you have the ability to think of those things in a rational way. Meaning, you see those things for what they are in a rational sense, but you object to those things as being approved of as norms or standard behavior. And nothing in rational thought is against that, but rather the opposite. Put it this way, no rational person say that rape or murder is okay in general. We could dive deeper into these specific topics, for instance, what do we mean with rape? What's the definition? Do we agree on the definition? Are there many different ways rape can be done, and does it apply it more areas than just sexual? And so on. And the same goes for murder. Is it the same as killing? If not, what is the difference? Do some situations exist when killing is accepted, even though it would by all definitions fall under the term murder? And on and on... It is the rational mind that can figure this out. So I reject the notion that rational thought approves of these acts, because it doesn't. Rationality doesn't mean approval, it means understanding, but not necessarily that it condones it, of the simple reason that rational thought can argue to why it is wrong. Without reason, no act can be explained, and no act can be approved or rejected. You MUST have rational thought to argue right and wrong.

[Guest end3]

NO! I'm having flashbacks of the LNC thread!! I am mentally damaged from seeing the word subjective, and objective so many times :wacko_old: But, to answer your question, I would say yes. I think the perfection and imperfection are subjective.

Sorry about that. Well, it means that perfect and imperfect is something in our opinion about the world, not something we can use as an argument to prove for or against a potential God. We see perfection were we want to see it, and we see imperfection were we want to. We are subjective beings, experiencing the world from our inner selves. So really, any argument for or against God are lost in the sea of confused language.

 

My communication skills suck....I would call myself a restorationist Hans, if that helps. I would think Heaven or Gan to be perfect and ordered, not our world. All I was saying was I was finding it somewhat irrational to choose and accept our world/reality, ie. rape, murder etc., as the norm and find acceptance and "happiness" with this understanding.

Well, if you find it irrational, it means you have the ability to think of those things in a rational way. Meaning, you see those things for what they are in a rational sense, but you object to those things as being approved of as norms or standard behavior. And nothing in rational thought is against that, but rather the opposite. Put it this way, no rational person say that rape or murder is okay in general. We could dive deeper into these specific topics, for instance, what do we mean with rape? What's the definition? Do we agree on the definition? Are there many different ways rape can be done, and does it apply it more areas than just sexual? And so on. And the same goes for murder. Is it the same as killing? If not, what is the difference? Do some situations exist when killing is accepted, even though it would by all definitions fall under the term murder? And on and on... It is the rational mind that can figure this out. So I reject the notion that rational thought approves of these acts, because it doesn't. Rationality doesn't mean approval, it means understanding, but not necessarily that it condones it, of the simple reason that rational thought can argue to why it is wrong. Without reason, no act can be explained, and no act can be approved or rejected. You MUST have rational thought to argue right and wrong.

 

No, I disagree with those things, but I find it interesting that a group of people choose "understanding" these things as acceptance of them on some level, (a level of reality), as to out and out rejection of them, understanding in lieu of a reality without.

[Guest end3]

Do you believe Hans, that there can exist a reality without these things?

[Ouroboros]

No, I disagree with those things, but I find it interesting that a group of people choose "understanding" these things as acceptance of them on some level, (a level of reality), as to out and out rejection of them, understanding in lieu of a reality without.

I don't think anyone accepts rape and murder just because they're part of reality. There is a huge difference between accepting something as being part of reality, another to accept them as something we should allow to keep on happening in society.

 

 

Do you believe Hans, that there can exist a reality without these things?

I doubt it. If it did, you would have to have pre-programmed robots. Which means, Heaven can't really be that glorious. Free Will must be removed in Heaven, since Free Will, by all the arguments must lead to the kind of world we live in.

[Guest end3]

No, I disagree with those things, but I find it interesting that a group of people choose "understanding" these things as acceptance of them on some level, (a level of reality), as to out and out rejection of them, understanding in lieu of a reality without.

I don't think anyone accepts rape and murder just because they're part of reality. There is a huge difference between accepting something as being part of reality, another to accept them as something we should allow to keep on happening in society.

 

 

Do you believe Hans, that there can exist a reality without these things?

I doubt it. If it did, you would have to have pre-programmed robots. Which means, Heaven can't really be that glorious. Free Will must be removed in Heaven, since Free Will, by all the arguments must lead to the kind of world we live in.

 

Well I guess therein we have the difference, hope.

[Ouroboros]

Well I guess therein we have the difference, hope.

Yes. You hope for a better world after death, I'm hoping for a better world before death.

 

So it looks like they came up with the number 613 and then tried to force what they found in the Old Testament to fit into that number. And Christians have been buying into this mystical crap ever since! I was taught it myself in Bible college, heard it from time to time from the pulpit and read it in Christian commentaries. It is all bunk!

And, now, back to your regularly scheduled programming ...

 

I didn't really. I always knew it was variant. I'm pretty sure Hans does too

Actually I didn't know 613 was an arbitrary number. Very interesting. It goes to show that the "perfect" law was a human construct even more. Modified and manipulated to fit.

 

It's like I heard about the 10 commandments, that it's not really The 10 commandments, but they're more like Top 10 Commandments. In other words, they don't replace the other "613+/-" minus 10 commandments, they are just the top most important ones.

[Abiyoyo]

Actually I didn't know 613 was an arbitrary number. Very interesting. It goes to show that the "perfect" law was a human construct even more. Modified and manipulated to fit.

 

It's like I heard about the 10 commandments, that it's not really The 10 commandments, but they're more like Top 10 Commandments. In other words, they don't replace the other "613+/-" minus 10 commandments, they are just the top most important ones.

 

I think they were the first, of the rest. It generalized the rest.

[Ouroboros]

I think they were the first, of the rest. It generalized the rest.

But there are many laws that do not fit in the 10. The dietary laws, or punishments of all different kinds. The one about rape is very interesting, since it treats the female victim as a property and not a person. The law objectified women and children. Even the 10 commandments show this. Was God a sexist?

[Guest end3]

Yes. You hope for a better world after death, I'm hoping for a better world before death.

 

Why then do some reject the means to "overcome"? Why is faith any less viable than education? Some aren't capable of education, and some aren't capable of faith? So again, why the rejection???? Seems as though an educated person would see this...

[Ouroboros]

Why then do some reject the means to "overcome"? Why is faith any less viable than education? Some aren't capable of education, and some aren't capable of faith? So again, why the rejection???? Seems as though an educated person would see this...

Rejecting how? Do you mean, rejecting faith in my own life, or rejecting the rights of others to have their faith? I reject faith in belief in things I know are fantasies, but I don't reject the right for you to believe whatever you want. So why are you rejecting my lack of faith?