Proof: God Isn't Moral

[Abiyoyo]

 

But how does the positive things of God justify the negative when the majority of negative actions God does in the bible outweighs the positive? Surely if there was something good about the OT god worth worshiping, he wouldn't he have done more positive things than negative? It just seems to me like you're believing for emotional reasons rather than because of evidence. I can understand why people believe for emotional reasons having once believed myself, but I don't understand if it's just emotional reasons, why do you try to justify those emotions through the bible if you admit it's all purely emotional? That's why it would make more sense to me to convert to a pure unadulterated faith like deism where you don't have to go through so many apologetics for it.

 

Most of the time Neon, I usually regard the Bible as a story, embellished, characterized by the writers, story tellers, etc. I don't take the Bible as the 'infallible' word of God, just a setting of what Jews wrote their God to be like, which is more like a mythical creature than a omni benevolent God. Now, here's the problem. I do believe in Jesus Christ, and His God is supposedly the God of the OT, yet Jesus is in no comparison to the OT God. That's the problem, the connection. What I usually do is read the Bible, and cancel out the attributes, or characteristics placed on God. Call me a cherry picker? But.. even if I just read it straight forward. There are parts where God has positive, powerful, omni whatever characteristics that would add up to the negative.

 

I know people see it as whatever, but it's a however many thousand year old book transliterated more than anyone can count, and is just a book about a people that claimed Him to be their God. I do ponder some of the events told in the Bible, and discuss with others what ..may or may not be..., but it's just discussion. Rational thought should be applied to the Bible. If we obeyed it word by word, then it would contradict itself from back to end. It can't be done that way. People do, for their own agenda, religious sect, etc; but that can lead to destruction for one's belief in the God of the Bible.

 

I imagine what the Bible would be like if the writers would've left out the attributes to God about this or that, or if mainstream Christianity would've have declared the Bible infallible word of God. Infallible word about God to His people written by His people, would be a better description of the Bible. It's only infallible to Jewish culture, because Moses was their Granddaddy.

 

But it does seem like cherry picking to me. You accept some atrocities in the OT as literal truth without evidence like the Flood story but then try to rationalize others through cherry picking like the story of Cain and Able and I don't understand this. Simply saying that's just the way it is doesn't explain it to me how that works, either. I've been attempting to read the entire bible and so far I'm up to the book of Ezra and it still doesn't make sense to me. In fact, the more of the bible I read, the more certain I am of my disbelief. If God exists and he's really worth worshiping and he desires our worship, why doesn't he try to make himself more understandable?

 

When did I say the Flood story was absolute truth, or try to 'cherry pick' the story of Cain/Abel???. The Thread from Tab?? I'm lost with your accusations Neon. You see what you want to see Neon. Like I said, I ponder on the events of the Bible, and discuss. Now, I may say that I think that the Flood story is possible because of this or that, but that doesn't mean I accept it as infallible, did happen, no questions asked. We don't have any evidence that a worldwide flood happened? Right? I don't stand as you say I do Neon. Maybe you should read my posts more before you make your presumptions about what and how I believe.

 

Oh, and Neon. Who ever said the Bible is suppose to make sense?

[Deva]

I imagine what the Bible would be like if the writers would've left out the attributes to God about this or that, or if mainstream Christianity would've have declared the Bible infallible word of God. Infallible word about God to His people written by His people, would be a better description of the Bible. It's only infallible to Jewish culture, because Moses was their Granddaddy.

 

Not addressed to me, but I would like to jump in here. The whole problem, yoyo, is that there are many of us here who were sold a bill of goods. We were told we HAD to believe the Bible was the infallible word of God. I am not saying it was that way for every type of Christianity, but it was sure that way for me.

 

Who ever said the Bible is suppose to make sense?

 

That's actually a good point. We are told to believe it, otherwise we are hellbound. Whether its sensible or not never entered into the picture.

[Neon Genesis]

Most of the time Neon, I usually regard the Bible as a story, embellished, characterized by the writers, story tellers, etc. I don't take the Bible as the 'infallible' word of God, just a setting of what Jews wrote their God to be like, which is more like a mythical creature than a omni benevolent God. Now, here's the problem. I do believe in Jesus Christ, and His God is supposedly the God of the OT, yet Jesus is in no comparison to the OT God. That's the problem, the connection. What I usually do is read the Bible, and cancel out the attributes, or characteristics placed on God. Call me a cherry picker? But.. even if I just read it straight forward. There are parts where God has positive, powerful, omni whatever characteristics that would add up to the negative.

I am not calling you a cherry picker because you don't believe in biblical inerrancy. I'm calling you a cherry picker because there's no consistency to how you approach the bible. With liberal Christians, they at least try to be consistent with their approach to the bible although they don't believe in a literal interpretation either. You claim to believe the OT is an embellished story and not infallible but literally believe in Satan as an actual pseudo-god or whatever. In one post you'll say evidence isn't important then in another post say some stuff in the bible is just the opinions of humans. You just pick and choose which verses you like and discard what you don't like and don't attempt any consistency at all. Again, if you accept some parts of the bible to be embellished, why not just ditch the whole belief in a literal Satan and a literal hell to be consistent? Otherwise you sound like a cherry picker to me.

 

I know people see it as whatever, but it's a however many thousand year old book transliterated more than anyone can count, and is just a book about a people that claimed Him to be their God. I do ponder some of the events told in the Bible, and discuss with others what ..may or may not be..., but it's just discussion. Rational thought should be applied to the Bible. If we obeyed it word by word, then it would contradict itself from back to end. It can't be done that way. People do, for their own agenda, religious sect, etc; but that can lead to destruction for one's belief in the God of the Bible.

Yes, rational thought should be applied to the bible and yes it's impossible to follow it word for word, but if you admit some parts of it are made up by humans, why should we believe any of it has divine inspiration in it? Why not accept that all of it is written by humans? That doesn't mean that it doesn't have value because the bible is a purely human invention. It's just if you apply rational thought to the bible, isn't it more likely that it's all a product of human imagination than having only some parts of it being caused by the supernatural and other parts that claim to be aren't really?

 

 

 

When did I say the Flood story was absolute truth, or try to 'cherry pick' the story of Cain/Abel???. The Thread from Tab?? I'm lost with your accusations Neon. You see what you want to see Neon. Like I said, I ponder on the events of the Bible, and discuss. Now, I may say that I think that the Flood story is possible because of this or that, but that doesn't mean I accept it as infallible, did happen, no questions asked. We don't have any evidence that a worldwide flood happened? Right? I don't stand as you say I do Neon. Maybe you should read my posts more before you make your presumptions about what and how I believe.

You stated in BN's thread that God could have somehow created the ark so it fit all the animals species on Earth even though it was smaller than the Titanic if God wanted to and evidence doesn't matter. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=29545

It is annoying isn't it FrogsToadBigGrin.gif But Pope. If it was a real occurrence then people would expect to see evidence of it. I can understand that position, yet I still say God could've done it if He is God, and why there isn't any evidence is beyond me FrogsToadBigGrin.gif I don't really care if there is evidence because it wouldn't change my belief one way or the other.

These are your words, not mine, and this is why I call you a cherry picker because you claim to approach the bible with a rational mind but in another thread you proclaim that rationality and evidence don't matter and I don't see the point in debating with someone who doesn't care about what's true and what isn't.

 

Oh, and Neon. Who ever said the Bible is suppose to make sense?

But then how can God expect anyone to believe it if it doesn't make sense? Greek mythology doesn't make sense either but nobody expects to believe any part of it is divinely inspired. Why should the bible be any different?

[Abiyoyo]

YoYo-When did I say the Flood story was absolute truth, or try to 'cherry pick' the story of Cain/Abel???. The Thread from Tab?? I'm lost with your accusations Neon. You see what you want to see Neon. Like I said, I ponder on the events of the Bible, and discuss. Now, I may say that I think that the Flood story is possible because of this or that, but that doesn't mean I accept it as infallible, did happen, no questions asked. We don't have any evidence that a worldwide flood happened? Right? I don't stand as you say I do Neon. Maybe you should read my posts more before you make your presumptions about what and how I believe.

 

Neon

You stated in BN's thread that God could have somehow created the ark so it fit all the animals species on Earth even though it was smaller than the Titanic if God wanted to and evidence doesn't matter.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=29545

It is annoying isn't it FrogsToadBigGrin.gif But Pope. If it was a real occurrence then people would expect to see evidence of it. I can understand that position, yet I still say God could've done it if He is God, and why there isn't any evidence is beyond me FrogsToadBigGrin.gif I don't really care if there is evidence because it wouldn't change my belief one way or the other.

These are your words, not mine, and this is why I call you a cherry picker because you claim to approach the bible with a rational mind but in another thread you proclaim that rationality and evidence don't matter and I don't see the point in debating with someone who doesn't care about what's true and what isn't.

 

I said that in context of my point, which was that I think all research of these stories are ridiculous and time consuming of intelligent people that could be studing how to save the planet instead.

It is annoying isn't it FrogsToadBigGrin.gif But Pope. If it was a real occurrence then people would expect to see evidence of it. I can understand that position, yet I still say God could've done it if He is God, and why there isn't any evidence is beyond me FrogsToadBigGrin.gif I don't really care if there is evidence because it wouldn't change my belief one way or the other. Some people instead of just saying, No, we don't have any evidence to show it really happened end up spending their every last second on earth just to try to prove it. I think that is sad and discouraging, for both parties. When that scientific knowledge and energy could be used to better humanity.

 

Quit cherry picking me Neon, go do something constructive; and if you do cherry pick me apart then at least do it right.

[Neon Genesis]

But you specifically said YoYo that whether there's evidence or not wouldn't change your beliefs, which implicates you don't care about evidence or truth and you said that God can do the Flood miracle because he's God. It's right there in your post. Yes, I agree there's more important things to be spending money on than these ridiculous fairytales, but that's because they're not true not because the bible is divinely inspired. And why do you believe in these fairytales if you admit they're ridiculous? Do you or do you not believe there's anything divinely inspired by the bible and what parts do you believe are divinely inspired if you do, and how much do you accept as literal truth?

[Abiyoyo]

But you specifically said YoYo that whether there's evidence or not wouldn't change your beliefs, which implicates you don't care about evidence or truth and you said that God can do the Flood miracle because he's God. It's right there in your post. Yes, I agree there's more important things to be spending money on than these ridiculous fairytales, but that's because they're not true not because the bible is divinely inspired. And why do you believe in these fairytales if you admit they're ridiculous? Do you or do you not believe there's anything divinely inspired by the bible and what parts do you believe are divinely inspired if you do, and how much do you accept as literal truth?

 

Yes. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, James, 1.2. Peter, 1.2.3. John, Jude, Revelations. All the prophetic books of the OT. I accept those as divinely inspired.

[Looking4Answers]

Yes. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, James, 1.2. Peter, 1.2.3. John, Jude, Revelations. All the prophetic books of the OT. I accept those as divinely inspired.

 

I am genuinely curious:

 

On what basis do you find these books divinely inspired and not the others? What is your criteria for selection? Why do the other books fail? I realize that you do not accept Paul's teachings as being necessarily divine in origin (and, thus, none of Paul's books are included in your list), but what about the Pentateuch? What about Psalms? What about Kings and Chronicles? Also, you state that you consider the OT prophet books to be inspired, but which ones do you consider to be prophetic? For example, is Daniel a prophetic book (even though the Jews do not place Daniel within the section labeled as The Prophets)? What about books that are no prophetic in-and-of themselves, but contain prophecy within them?

[Ouroboros]

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is also divinely inspired. Just look at the clever resolution of the "6 x 9 = 42". Only God would have known this was true in Base 13 arithmetic. Q.E.D.

[Neon Genesis]

Yes. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, James, 1.2. Peter, 1.2.3. John, Jude, Revelations. All the prophetic books of the OT. I accept those as divinely inspired.

But why do you reject Paul's writings as divinely inspired but accept the rest of scripture as divinely inspired? This is why I say you're a cherry picker. Because you accept some stuff as divinely inspired but then reject the rest, and when we criticize the bible's descriptions of God's character, you claim that's just the opinions of humans but then turn around and contradict yourself by saying it's divinely inspired. Again, to be consistent, why don't you accept the rest as being the opinions of humans? To quote Bishop Spong, "Scripture is not God. Scripture is humanity seeking God but their humanity kept constantly getting in the way." I don't understand why you seem to accept that some scripture is God but not other parts that's inconvenient for you. If you reject Paul's writings, do you reject Paul's writings about morality when it comes to homosexuality and the roles of women or non members of the Abrahamic religions going to hell?

[Abiyoyo]

Yes. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, James, 1.2. Peter, 1.2.3. John, Jude, Revelations. All the prophetic books of the OT. I accept those as divinely inspired.

 

I am genuinely curious:

 

On what basis do you find these books divinely inspired and not the others? What is your criteria for selection? Why do the other books fail? I realize that you do not accept Paul's teachings as being necessarily divine in origin (and, thus, none of Paul's books are included in your list), but what about the Pentateuch? What about Psalms? What about Kings and Chronicles? Also, you state that you consider the OT prophet books to be inspired, but which ones do you consider to be prophetic? For example, is Daniel a prophetic book (even though the Jews do not place Daniel within the section labeled as The Prophets)? What about books that are no prophetic in-and-of themselves, but contain prophecy within them?

 

I think some of the Book of Daniel is questioned? As far as Kings, Chronicles, I see them more of the Pentateuch as far as content, story telling of the Israelites. The NT Books I listed, in my opinion, are the closest writings to Christ's divinity that can be accumulated. Paul, I do not reject as inspirational so to speak, just not divinely, authoritative. Maybe, I see the Books I listed as more divinely authoritatively inspired than the rest. I believe in Christ, and I am not a Jew; so I would focus the terming of Books I see divine, authoritative, inspired in nature, to be lining up to the Christian belief structured around Christ.

 

I still read the rest, consider the stories; but the NT Books I listed, are my buffer. The Bible is an incredibly long book, and I have read it several times. As far as studying the Bible, comparing scripture, referencing, it is a hundreds times more consuming than just reading it. There are so many different points of reference that it would take 3 lifetimes to sort through it all. The are commentaries, studies, explaining the Bible and its meaning. Some are agreed by scholars, some are not. So, it's not a unanimous theology among scholars, it's branched into many different theologies throughout the faith. Every doctrine cherry picks, or appoints certain books as 'more important' or 'less important'.

 

God never said, I command thee to write a biography about your dealings with me? Right? I see the OT God in a connection with Jesus as fulfilling the words by His prophets; and fulfilling the Word, which was written about Him, while at the same time rewriting the whole Book. Jesus said, Those that have ears to hear, let them hear. I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill the Law. If you believed Moses, then you would believe me. Jesus's solidification of the greatest commandments. Jesus healed on the Sabbath. The explanation of David stealing the show bread. The explanation of why God gave Moses the decree of divorcement. Characterizing human nature as disbelieving, stubborn, hardened.

 

I believe Christ is a testament of the divine nature of God, and is the 'finished' version of the biography of God by the people that believed in God, which were the Jews. I think in another thread I responded to a post of your's mentioning the Jerusalem Decree, and that is what Gentiles were held by then. If we take away Paul, the Jerusalem Decree is all that is left to guide someone that believes in Christ, that isn't a Jew. Right? I do consider Peter to be more grounded in my class of criteria as his method was different than Paul's, and God gave him the vision about the Gentiles.

[Neon Genesis]

I think some of the Book of Daniel is questioned? As far as Kings, Chronicles, I see them more of the Pentateuch as far as content, story telling of the Israelites. The NT Books I listed, in my opinion, are the closest writings to Christ's divinity that can be accumulated. Paul, I do not reject as inspirational so to speak, just not divinely, authoritative. Maybe, I see the Books I listed as more divinely authoritatively inspired than the rest. I believe in Christ, and I am not a Jew; so I would focus the terming of Books I see divine, authoritative, inspired in nature, to be lining up to the Christian belief structured around Christ.

So, do you or do you not believe the OT Flood story to be a historical fact and do you believe the stories of God committing immoral actions in the OT and NT to be historical facts?

 

Every doctrine cherry picks, or appoints certain books as 'more important' or 'less important'.

Of course every doctrine cherry picks, but you're still missing the point. Surely if a perfect and all-mighty god existed that desired our worship would be able to create a holy book we could follow without cherry picking? That doesn't mean it no longer has value but if we have to cherry pick to reasonably follow it, then isn't that all the more proof that none of the scriptures are divinely inspired and are all purely the inventions of humanity? Why not apply the same approach to Greek mythology?

 

God never said, I command thee to write a biography about your dealings with me? Right?

But if God existed and desired our worship, why doesn't he make himself and his true intentions known and clear to us so we wouldn't have to cherry pick his word? Isn't the fact that he doesn't seem to care to make his intentions clearer proof that he either doesn't exist or he doesn't care if we worship him? Why do you seem to believe that some scriptures are more biographical than others?

 

I see the OT God in a connection with Jesus as fulfilling the words by His prophets; and fulfilling the Word, which was written about Him, while at the same time rewriting the whole Book. Jesus said, Those that have ears to hear, let them hear. I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill the Law.

But why do Christians ignore OT laws if Jesus said he didn't come to destroy it? Doesn't that mean it still applies to us and so Christians should still stone people for eating shellfish? Why did Jesus uphold some traditions of the old law like the passover traditions but seemed to discard the rest? Why does Jesus even cherry pick the scriptures himself if he was divinely inspired at all?

 

Characterizing human nature as disbelieving, stubborn, hardened.

Why is disbelieving in God a bad thing and why is faith a virtue? Why is it that faith is the thing God wants most out of people?

[Abiyoyo]

So, do you or do you not believe the OT Flood story to be a historical fact and do you believe the stories of God committing immoral actions in the OT and NT to be historical facts?

No and be more specific of the NT acts of immorality.

 

Of course every doctrine cherry picks, but you're still missing the point. Surely if a perfect and all-mighty god existed that desired our worship would be able to create a holy book we could follow without cherry picking? That doesn't mean it no longer has value but if we have to cherry pick to reasonably follow it, then isn't that all the more proof that none of the scriptures are divinely inspired and are all purely the inventions of humanity?

No, in my opinion.

 

Why not apply the same approach to Greek mythology?

I do, Greek mythology ceased during early Christianity. Christianity is still 'divinely' present 2000 years later.

 

But if God existed and desired our worship, why doesn't he make himself and his true intentions known and clear to us so we wouldn't have to cherry pick his word? Isn't the fact that he doesn't seem to care to make his intentions clearer proof that he either doesn't exist or he doesn't care if we worship him?

Not really. Maybe to you, not me.

 

But why do Christians ignore OT laws if Jesus said he didn't come to destroy it?

Jerusalem decree, and we aren't Jews.

 

Why did Jesus uphold some traditions of the old law like the passover traditions but seemed to discard the rest? Why does Jesus even cherry pick the scriptures himself if he was divinely inspired at all?

Dunno, ask Him for me next time you see Him, since you seem to be a profound believer with many questions.

[Ouroboros]

I'm a bit disappointed Yoyo, I thought you were slowly coming around. It seems like you are falling back into the faith-box again.

[Looking4Answers]

I think some of the Book of Daniel is questioned? As far as Kings, Chronicles, I see them more of the Pentateuch as far as content, story telling of the Israelites. The NT Books I listed, in my opinion, are the closest writings to Christ's divinity that can be accumulated. Paul, I do not reject as inspirational so to speak, just not divinely, authoritative. Maybe, I see the Books I listed as more divinely authoritatively inspired than the rest. I believe in Christ, and I am not a Jew; so I would focus the terming of Books I see divine, authoritative, inspired in nature, to be lining up to the Christian belief structured around Christ.

 

So your basis for determining which books are divinely inspired is "I think" and your "opinion?" That is not a very solid position to take. What is it about your thoughts and your opinions that allow you to so easily determine which books belong in the divinely inspired Bible and which ones do not? I am not trying to be mean or funny here, I am honestly asking. What credentials do you have that enable you to determine what is and is not divinely inspired?

 

So Paul may be inspirational, but not authoritative. But what does that mean? The word inspirational means different things to different people. To the theologian, inspiration is the means by which god transmits his divine word to men ... how the Bible was written (according to them). So for you to say that Paul is inspirational, that would imply divine transmission (to a theologian). If this word is not taken from a theological perspective, then it can mean just about anything. Paul's writings could be as inspired as the Beatles. In this case, the writings of Paul are relegated to simple literature. So which is it? Are the writings of Paul, in your opinion, from god or from men?

 

I still read the rest, consider the stories; but the NT Books I listed, are my buffer.

 

But this is a buffer that you have created. Base on what principle?

 

The are commentaries, studies, explaining the Bible and its meaning. Some are agreed by scholars, some are not. So, it's not a unanimous theology among scholars, it's branched into many different theologies throughout the faith. Every doctrine cherry picks, or appoints certain books as 'more important' or 'less important'.

 

The difference may be that these men and women may have sound reasons for their cherry picking. I am not saying that you do not. What I am doing is asking what your reasons are. The theologians that make a decision to believe a certain passage should be in the Bible and remain authoritative do so on some basis. It could be years of study of the manuscripts. It could be any number of things. What do you bring to the table (other than I think or my opinion)? Again, I am not trying to be mean. This is the internet. For all I know, you could be a world-class scholar on the subject. I doubt it (mainly because I know that you don't read Hebrew and for a few other reasons), but who knows?

 

Paul, I do not reject as inspirational so to speak, just not divinely, authoritative.

 

I wanted to revisit this for a moment. You say that you do not consider Paul to be divinely authoritative. Yet you consider Peter's epistles to be:

 

I do consider Peter to be more grounded in my class of criteria as his method was different than Paul's, and God gave him the vision about the Gentiles.

 

Have you read this passage from Second Peter 3:15-16:

 

“And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

 

In this passage Peter equates Paul's epistles to Scripture. He states that Paul writes according to wisdom. He admits that the things that Paul writes may be hard to understand, but that it is the unlearned and unstable that have problems with them (and other Scripture also).

 

So, if Peter is divinely inspired and authoritative, and if Peter equates Paul's epistles to Scripture and wisdom, then why do you reject Paul's epistles?

[Neon Genesis]

No and be more specific of the NT acts of immorality.

Thank you for clearing that up, but why did you go to such lenghts to try and justify God's actions earlier in the thread since you admit that these are just stories and not actual real historical facts?

 

No, in my opinion.

But how so? For what purpose would God divinely inspire in any sense of the phrase an imperfect collection of mythological stories that record said god as committing evil actions and how are we supposed to learn what God thinks is moral or immoral with a "good book" that isn't all that good and out-dated? If I was applying for a job and wanted to be hired, I wouldn't intentionally put on my resume that I committed a felony when I didn't ever do one and it was just something I made up but apparently God would?

 

I do, Greek mythology ceased during early Christianity. Christianity is still 'divinely' present 2000 years later.

Please clarify your meaning here. Does this mean you only believe in Christianity because of cultural reasons?

 

Not really. Maybe to you, not me.

But why?

 

 

Jerusalem decree, and we aren't Jews.

But you yourself said that Jesus said he didn't come to destroy the old law. How do you get "destroy the old law" out of "don't destroy the old law"?

 

Dunno, ask Him for me next time you see Him, since you seem to be a profound believer with many questions.

Huh?

[Abiyoyo]

So your basis for determining which books are divinely inspired is "I think" and your "opinion?" That is not a very solid position to take. What is it about your thoughts and your opinions that allow you to so easily determine which books belong in the divinely inspired Bible and which ones do not? I am not trying to be mean or funny here, I am honestly asking. What credentials do you have that enable you to determine what is and is not divinely inspired?

 

Daniel is not held as a prophetic text by the Jews. In Sirach, Daniel is not mentioned as a significant figure. So, I put that in with the non prophets. I say in my opinion because it is just my opinion, from my studies. If Paul is divinely authoritative, then women should not speak in church, or wear jewelry.

 

So Paul may be inspirational, but not authoritative. But what does that mean? The word inspirational means different things to different people. To the theologian, inspiration is the means by which god transmits his divine word to men ... how the Bible was written (according to them). So for you to say that Paul is inspirational, that would imply divine transmission (to a theologian). If this word is not taken from a theological perspective, then it can mean just about anything. Paul's writings could be as inspired as the Beatles. In this case, the writings of Paul are relegated to simple literature. So which is it? Are the writings of Paul, in your opinion, from god or from men?

 

I'm not meaning divine transmission in that sense when I say inspirational. I mean it as Peter meant it, as you stated below. Paul meant well, and I no doubt think he was encountered by Christ, yet I see it the same light as Moses really. I don't hold Moses to be authoritative, but if I were Jewish, I would be in debt to hold his words as authoritative because the tradition is that his words came from the mouth of God. Paul, on the other hand, is not having conversations with God as was Moses in His writings, hence making Him not authoritative of Christ's words. Make sense?

 

 

 

But this is a buffer that you have created. Base on what principle?

 

The principle of the teachings of Christ. Did Jesus say for women to not speak? He said his mother would be a memorial to all. Paul was a Hellenistic Jew, influenced by the Greek. Prayer, Paul encourages group prayer. Jesus said to go somewhere alone and pray to the Father. The buffer is Christ. If it doesn't line up to Christ, then it goes into another category for me.

 

 

 

The difference may be that these men and women may have sound reasons for their cherry picking. I am not saying that you do not. What I am doing is asking what your reasons are. The theologians that make a decision to believe a certain passage should be in the Bible and remain authoritative do so on some basis. It could be years of study of the manuscripts. It could be any number of things. What do you bring to the table (other than I think or my opinion)? Again, I am not trying to be mean. This is the internet. For all I know, you could be a world-class scholar on the subject. I doubt it (mainly because I know that you don't read Hebrew and for a few other reasons), but who knows?

 

No, I am not a world class scholar, but I have done quite a bit of study and research in my time as a Christian. No, I don't read Hebrew, God's language, but I do English, and am competent to judge, test, and chose my guide in Christ. Catholics put the Christian Bible together, Protestants did the same, omitting some books of the Catholic, and both have books that the Jews use, while Catholics have a few more. In modern Protestant umbrella, it's not Books, it's scripture. So, now in today's Christian faith we have doctrine such as OSAS, or the AntiChrist doctrine where people are sitting waiting for the AntiChrist. We have 'spiritual churches' that run around the church shouting and screaming, churches that are are so extreme in differences that a newcomer to Christianity would not be around long. So, to resolve that problem, churches preach that they hold the ''authoritative'' word of God, or doctrine at that. Christianity is judgmental, and from my observations in life, Jesus is forgotten. Oh yeah, Paul gives instructions of the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and discerning the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, ..John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.....Nobody knows who the spirit of God is upon, which goes against Paul.

Yoyo-Paul, I do not reject as inspirational so to speak, just not divinely, authoritative.

 

I wanted to revisit this for a moment. You say that you do not consider Paul to be divinely authoritative. Yet you consider Peter's epistles to be:

 

Yoyo- I do consider Peter to be more grounded in my class of criteria as his method was different than Paul's, and God gave him the vision about the Gentiles.

 

Have you read this passage from Second Peter 3:15-16:

 

“And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

 

In this passage Peter equates Paul's epistles to Scripture. He states that Paul writes according to wisdom. He admits that the things that Paul writes may be hard to understand, but that it is the unlearned and unstable that have problems with them (and other Scripture also).

 

So, if Peter is divinely inspired and authoritative, and if Peter equates Paul's epistles to Scripture and wisdom, then why do you reject Paul's epistles?

 

The wisdom given unto him. By who? Christ? I see that as the separation of Peter from Paul in a '' not trying to be mean'' way :wink:

[Neon Genesis]

I'm not meaning divine transmission in that sense when I say inspirational. I mean it as Peter meant it, as you stated below. Paul meant well, and I no doubt think he was encountered by Christ, yet I see it the same light as Moses really. I don't hold Moses to be authoritative, but if I were Jewish, I would be in debt to hold his words as authoritative because the tradition is that his words came from the mouth of God. Paul, on the other hand, is not having conversations with God as was Moses in His writings, hence making Him not authoritative of Christ's words. Make sense?

But why should Moses' accounts of having conversations with God be held more reliable than Paul? There's no non-biblical evidence Moses spoke with God and without evidence I don't see any reason to believe Moses over Paul or Muhammed. Besides, I thought you said you didn't accept the stories as literal facts yet you do when it comes to their supernatural encounters? Why should the supernatural encounters be believed yet other parts you find inconvenient to follow are discarded? If other parts of the scriptures are found to be inaccurate, why should we trust the scriptures' recordings of supernatural events to be reliable?

 

The principle of the teachings of Christ. Did Jesus say for women to not speak? He said his mother would be a memorial to all. Paul was a Hellenistic Jew, influenced by the Greek. Prayer, Paul encourages group prayer. Jesus said to go somewhere alone and pray to the Father. The buffer is Christ. If it doesn't line up to Christ, then it goes into another category for me.

Do you believe homosexuality is a sin then? Jesus never said anything about homosexuality either yet Paul did, so do you accept gay Christians and that gays should have equal rights?

[Abiyoyo]

But why should Moses' accounts of having conversations with God be held more reliable than Paul? There's no non-biblical evidence Moses spoke with God and without evidence I don't see any reason to believe Moses over Paul or Muhammed. Besides, I thought you said you didn't accept the stories as literal facts yet you do when it comes to their supernatural encounters? Why should the supernatural encounters be believed yet other parts you find inconvenient to follow are discarded? If other parts of the scriptures are found to be inaccurate, why should we trust the scriptures' recordings of supernatural events to be reliable?

 

It's not, I stated I put them all in the same category.

yoyo If it doesn't line up to Christ, then it goes into another category for me.

See my quote below.

 

YoYoThe principle of the teachings of Christ. Did Jesus say for women to not speak? He said his mother would be a memorial to all. Paul was a Hellenistic Jew, influenced by the Greek. Prayer, Paul encourages group prayer. Jesus said to go somewhere alone and pray to the Father. The buffer is Christ. If it doesn't line up to Christ, then it goes into another category for me.

 

Do you believe homosexuality is a sin then? Jesus never said anything about homosexuality either yet Paul did, so do you accept gay Christians and that gays should have equal rights?

 

Acts says to abstain form fornication.

Acts 15:29

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

(KJV)

 

Jude goes into not sexual immorality

Jude 1:7

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

(KJV)

 

Peter talks about conditions of immorality

1 Pet 4:2-3

2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

(KJV)

 

Jesus spoke about certain conditions of sexual immorality.

Matt 15:19-20

19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

(KJV)

[Abiyoyo]

I'm a bit disappointed Yoyo, I thought you were slowly coming around. It seems like you are falling back into the faith-box again.

 

Define 'faith-box'? The zapping of my posts made me feel young again, as when I first come aboard.

[Ouroboros]

Acts says to abstain form fornication.

...

Jude goes into not sexual immorality

...

Peter talks about conditions of immorality

...

Jesus spoke about certain conditions of sexual immorality.

...

I know your answer was in response to NG, but I have to inject my opinion here. Sexual immorality and fornication is not the same as homosexuality. First of all fornication is when a man or a wife go outside of marriage and have sex, pre-martial, or during marriage. Secondly homosexuality includes more feelings than lust. I'm not homosexual myself, but I know enough to say their emotions are just as much about love, care, and attraction of many other kinds, than just sexual satisfaction. So your answer really didn't answer NG's point.

 

 

Define 'faith-box'? The zapping of my posts made me feel young again, as when I first come aboard:grin:

You seemed for a while to become a more agnostic/alternative believer than Christian, but it seems like you're falling back into the religious camp. Faith-box as the enclosed space where only belief is pertinent to knowing right from wrong.

[Neon Genesis]

Acts says to abstain form fornication.

Acts 15:29

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

(KJV)

 

Jude goes into not sexual immorality

Jude 1:7

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

(KJV)

 

Peter talks about conditions of immorality

1 Pet 4:2-3

2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

(KJV)

 

Jesus spoke about certain conditions of sexual immorality.

Matt 15:19-20

19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

(KJV)

Those other verses are from Acts, not the words of Jesus. Peter and Jude are also not Jesus. As Hans points out, being gay and fornication are not the same thing. Homosexuality is not the same as lust anymore than heterosexuality is and as far as I'm aware, Jesus never says anything about prohibiting gay marriage. About the only thing Jesus says about marriage is that divorce is sin. Funny though how Christians have no problems with the legalizing of divorce even though Jesus taught it was a sin.

[Abiyoyo]

I know your answer was in response to NG, but I have to inject my opinion here. Sexual immorality and fornication is not the same as homosexuality. First of all fornication is when a man or a wife go outside of marriage and have sex, pre-martial, or during marriage. Secondly homosexuality includes more feelings than lust. I'm not homosexual myself, but I know enough to say their emotions are just as much about love, care, and attraction of many other kinds, than just sexual satisfaction. So your answer really didn't answer NG's point.

 

I was just pointing out some verses from NT, involving sexual immorality. All those verse were retranslated in the NKJV, the word fornication was changed to sexual immorality.

 

Strong's definition is

4202 porneia (por-ni'-ah);

 

from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:

 

KJV-- fornication.

 

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

 

Strong's Number: 4202 Browse Lexicon

Original Word Word Origin

porneiva from (4203)

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry

Porneia 6:579,918

Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech

por-ni'-ah Noun Feminine

Definition

 

1. illicit sexual intercourse

1. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

2. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

3. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,

2. metaph. the worship of idols

1. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

 

 

You seemed for a while to become a more agnostic/alternative believer than Christian, but it seems like you're falling back into the religious camp. Faith-box as the enclosed space where only belief is pertinent to knowing right from wrong.

 

I always have been believer in Christ. I ponder many things about the Bible. I'm still the same ole' YoYo Hans. ....I know, I will do the Jesus shake for you, that will cheer you up

[Abiyoyo]

Matt 15:19-20

19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

(KJV)

Those other verses are from Acts, not the words of Jesus. Peter and Jude are also not Jesus. As Hans points out, being gay and fornication are not the same thing. Homosexuality is not the same as lust anymore than heterosexuality is and as far as I'm aware, Jesus never says anything about prohibiting gay marriage. About the only thing Jesus says about marriage is that divorce is sin. Funny though how Christians have no problems with the legalizing of divorce even though Jesus taught it was a sin.

 

This Matt 15:19-20 is also using the same word for fornication Neon, as I posted above to Hans. Supposedly it means includes homosexuality as well.

[Neon Genesis]

1. illicit sexual intercourse

1. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

2. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

3. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,

2. metaph. the worship of idols

1. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

But even in those definitions, only one of them defines fornication as homosexuality. The others define it as illicit sexual intercourse, bestiality, incest, adultery, or a metaphor for idol worship. If Jesus implied he was speaking about homosexuality, why didn't he specifically say homosexuality was a sin like Paul did? Why did Jesus bring his ministry to prostitutes but not gays if he thought homosexuality was such a big issue? And why is something good or bad simply because Jesus says so? Do you really think it's true morality to believe something is right or wrong simply because Jesus said it? Are things right or wrong because they're right or wrong or are they right or wrong because Jesus said they are? If you just blindly accept everything Jesus says as being right because he said so, why don't you stop trying to justify God's immorality in the OT? Why is it that you agree God is immoral in the OT but that the condemnation of homosexuality isn't immoral? This is another reason why I call you a cherry picker because you use critical thinking for God's immoral actions in the OT and show that you know how to think skeptically, but then you don't apply the same reasoning to these other issues like homosexuality and just accept them with faith. Either accept the claims of the bible with blind faith or approach it with skepticism and rationality, but you can't have it both ways and only think skeptically with the bible when it's convenient with you.

 

This Matt 15:19-20 is also using the same word for fornication Neon, as I posted above to Hans. Supposedly it means includes homosexuality as well.

Verse 20 says that the sins in verse 19 are what defiles men. If Jesus was speaking about homosexuality, why didn't he include women in verse 20, too? There's nothing in those verses to suggest Jesus was including homosexuality. Again, where in the bible does Jesus directly condemn homosexuality? If you can't find any examples but still want to believe homosexuality is a sin, you must either accept the barbaric teachings of the OT as still being applicable to Christians or you must accept all of the teaching of Paul, including the verses from Paul where he condones sexism and slavery. Or you could just take the third option and deconvert.

[Abiyoyo]

Or you could just take the third option and deconvert.

 

I know you are gay Neon. I don't know what to say to you really. We could be talking all night. I will say it's probably the same as when people tell me I shouldn't smoke because Paul said our bodies are the temple of God?? I am not judging you Neon. I was just discussing the topic.