"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"

[NobleGuy]

TheHeretic said:

NobleGuy said:

You are agreeing you moron. My point from the beginning was that "magic hydra" and "wicker buffalo" aren't as likely as God to be a creator unless carmonk is using those terms to mean "something God-like", in which case he's using unnecessarily derogatory terms to belittle the beliefs of others (which I always knew to be the case).

My whole point was that carmonk is a p***k. Do you not understand this yet...?

Reported.

[Gow3r]

TheHeretic said:

What is the bigger picture?

What I mean by that, is quite simple really, if you read the Bible you can take any old verse independantly and get it to say what you want, hence you have idiots (who are not christians) though they think they are like westboro baptist, getting the Bible to justify their extreme beliefs which are not biblical.

In short they have no biblical theology, they do not get how it all ties together (dont quote your contradictions at me again, we did that 60 pages ago, and you ignored my response), you see if you have a biblical theology you see the themes of the Bible, then when you come across a one off verse that says something we consider odd we dont mis-interpet it because we have an understanding of the characteristics of God.

Also a lot of it has to do with a misunderstanding of the Old Covenant and how it relates to the New Covenant and how really the Bible is one story about God and his story of redemption through Jesus Christ his son.

[bikemonster]

Gow3r said:

1. I believe the whole of the Bible is the word of God not just the bits and pieces that are often quoted

2. All humanity has ever done is live to serve number one, I see no reason to say this was not the case back when the Bible was written

I've edited your quote to highlight two separate points you made, the second of which rather calls into question the first, don't you think?

If you feel I've misquoted, which was not my intention, please clarify.

[TheHeretic]

You mentioned the new covenant, and yet the evidence to back that up is? Does the new covenant mean the oldmcovenant was wrong? Did we really need a scapegoat death and torture in order to get this new covenant?

What does dying on the cross have to do with forgiving sins? (see picture I posted earlier).

Basically, all this talk of misunderstanding is utterly meaningless if you insist on pretending everyone else is reading it wrong. It is terribly convenient that this sort of reasoning is given to respond to part of the bible that are horrific. Can you show us some of this missunderstanding?

Why is god's book only readable by theologians who can only see the big picture?

[carmonk]

NobleGuy said:

You are agreeing you moron. My point from the beginning was that "magic hydra" and "wicker buffalo" aren't as likely as God to be a creator unless carmonk is using those terms to mean "something God-like", in which case he's using unnecessarily derogatory terms to belittle the beliefs of others (which I always knew to be the case).

My whole point was that carmonk is a p***k. Do you not understand this yet...?

Ah, back to the insults when the adult conversation gets you flustered. Just your level and unless I'm mistaken it's where you left us last time.

[Gow3r]

bikemonster said:

Gow3r said:

1. I believe the whole of the Bible is the word of God not just the bits and pieces that are often quoted

2. All humanity has ever done is live to serve number one, I see no reason to say this was not the case back when the Bible was written

I've edited your quote to highlight two separate points you made, the second of which rather calls into question the first, don't you think?

If you feel I've misquoted, which was not my intention, please clarify.

very clever twisting of my words then and clearly misquoting what I was saying, which is a bit unfair, nevermind. I will simplify it. What I meant by point 1 is, you either believe it all or none of it....some of it cannot be the word of God and some it not. Ok?

Secondly what I meant by that point is, we all live to serve or worship different things....but I am not claiming the BIble is one of those things as it is authored by God, ok written by human hands but inspired by the Holy Spirit.
And simply the BIble details accounts of people worshipping false Gods instead of the one true God, the Bible has not been written to serve humanity, it is about God not about us, we are a part of the story.

I have no doubt you will agree with my first and disagree with my second point there.

[NobleGuy]

carmonk said:

NobleGuy said:

You are agreeing you moron. My point from the beginning was that "magic hydra" and "wicker buffalo" aren't as likely as God to be a creator unless carmonk is using those terms to mean "something God-like", in which case he's using unnecessarily derogatory terms to belittle the beliefs of others (which I always knew to be the case).

My whole point was that carmonk is a p***k. Do you not understand this yet...?

Ah, back to the insults when the adult conversation gets you flustered. Just your level and unless I'm mistaken it's where you left us last time.

Well, the only reason I went down that path was the regular use of ridiculous terms to describe other people's beliefs. I'm just more to the point, whereas you try and hide behind so-called intellect.

[Gow3r]

Here is a trivial example of you being able to get the Bible to say whatever you like to justify things....

A bloke was praying and asked God to show him some scripture to speak to him so he firstly just opened up his Bible to Matthew 27:5,

"Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself"

Not satisified with this he turned again and turned to Luke 10:37,

"Go and do likewise"

Now we are not stupid are we, we can see that is being a silly tounge in cheek inllustration does not paint the picture of what God teaches, but some people would push it, some people would go down that route. Also I am not avoiding the "difficult" passages in the OT they are a part of the whole story and are important (not just explained away)

[bikemonster]

Gow3r said:

very clever twisting of my words then and clearly misquoting what I was saying, which is a bit unfair, nevermind. I will simplify it. What I meant by point 1 is, you either believe it all or none of it....some of it cannot be the word of God and some it not. Ok?

Secondly what I meant by that point is, we all live to serve or worship different things....but I am not claiming the BIble is one of those things as it is authored by God, ok written by human hands but inspired by the Holy Spirit.
And simply the BIble details accounts of people worshipping false Gods instead of the one true God, the Bible has not been written to serve humanity, it is about God not about us, we are a part of the story.

I have no doubt you will agree with my first and disagree with my second point there.

Possibly not what you meant to say but leaving aside the authorship of the bible, the fact that it has been passed down as an oral tradition for what, hundreds of years, then written and translated between Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Greek, transcribed more-than-many-times would have allowed enormous errors to creep in.

Add to that inevitable tweaking as transcribers did their bit to "clarify" what they were transcribing, the better to make it support their point of view.

Now, how do you know that your chosen deity is indeed the OTG?

[carmonk]

NobleGuy said:

carmonk said:

NobleGuy said:

You are agreeing you moron. My point from the beginning was that "magic hydra" and "wicker buffalo" aren't as likely as God to be a creator unless carmonk is using those terms to mean "something God-like", in which case he's using unnecessarily derogatory terms to belittle the beliefs of others (which I always knew to be the case).

My whole point was that carmonk is a p***k. Do you not understand this yet...?

Ah, back to the insults when the adult conversation gets you flustered. Just your level and unless I'm mistaken it's where you left us last time.

Well, the only reason I went down that path was the regular use of ridiculous terms to describe other people's beliefs. I'm just more to the point, whereas you try and hide behind so-called intellect.

In other words you can't hack logical debate. Don't worry, we've all known that for some time.

[NobleGuy]

carmonk said:

NobleGuy said:

carmonk said:

NobleGuy said:

You are agreeing you moron. My point from the beginning was that "magic hydra" and "wicker buffalo" aren't as likely as God to be a creator unless carmonk is using those terms to mean "something God-like", in which case he's using unnecessarily derogatory terms to belittle the beliefs of others (which I always knew to be the case).

My whole point was that carmonk is a p***k. Do you not understand this yet...?

Ah, back to the insults when the adult conversation gets you flustered. Just your level and unless I'm mistaken it's where you left us last time.

Well, the only reason I went down that path was the regular use of ridiculous terms to describe other people's beliefs. I'm just more to the point, whereas you try and hide behind so-called intellect.

In other words you can't hack logical debate. Don't worry, we've all known that for some time.

I've given you logical debate to show you for what you are, but of course you don't see it, accept it or contemplate that someone else could be right when it doesn't fit into your little world. It's no big deal, I've met a few like you.

[Gow3r]

bikemonster said:

Gow3r said:

very clever twisting of my words then and clearly misquoting what I was saying, which is a bit unfair, nevermind. I will simplify it. What I meant by point 1 is, you either believe it all or none of it....some of it cannot be the word of God and some it not. Ok?

Secondly what I meant by that point is, we all live to serve or worship different things....but I am not claiming the BIble is one of those things as it is authored by God, ok written by human hands but inspired by the Holy Spirit.
And simply the BIble details accounts of people worshipping false Gods instead of the one true God, the Bible has not been written to serve humanity, it is about God not about us, we are a part of the story.

I have no doubt you will agree with my first and disagree with my second point there.

Possibly not what you meant to say but leaving aside the authorship of the bible, the fact that it has been passed down as an oral tradition for what, hundreds of years, then written and translated between Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Greek, transcribed more-than-many-times would have allowed enormous errors to creep in.

Add to that inevitable tweaking as transcribers did their bit to "clarify" what they were transcribing, the better to make it support their point of view.

Now, how do you know that your chosen deity is indeed the OTG?

Most definetly not what I meant to say

I agree it ahs been passed down orally no doubting that, would be foolish to think otherwise, particularly as it was Jewish tradition! And yes translating works does pose problems, am I right in thinking it is the most scoured through book ever? In terms of translators desperate to get the correct interpretation. Also I seem to remember when the Dead Sea Scrolls were uncovered and large Parts of Isaiah found, the modern day English translation was found to be near enough perfect.

Also the tweaking thing, in the NT, there is in one of the gospels I forget which a bracketed section, where the modern day translators are unsure whether this was in the orginal text or not so they have bracketed it and it is best understood as not just in case, now nothing in those brackets is off the chart or crazy, but they are very careful not to abuse it or twist it for their own agendas.

And on the last point, is that not a question of Faith? It is what I believe, that the God of the Bible is the one True God and his Son Jesus died in my place for my sin so I can be in relationship with him. I am not sure there is anything I will be able to say that is going to convince you, especially as we disagree on the authorship of the BIble. I believe it, and you dont so of course we have differing opinions, it shapes our world view

[carmonk]

NobleGuy said:

carmonk said:

NobleGuy said:

carmonk said:

NobleGuy said:

You are agreeing you moron. My point from the beginning was that "magic hydra" and "wicker buffalo" aren't as likely as God to be a creator unless carmonk is using those terms to mean "something God-like", in which case he's using unnecessarily derogatory terms to belittle the beliefs of others (which I always knew to be the case).

My whole point was that carmonk is a p***k. Do you not understand this yet...?

Ah, back to the insults when the adult conversation gets you flustered. Just your level and unless I'm mistaken it's where you left us last time.

Well, the only reason I went down that path was the regular use of ridiculous terms to describe other people's beliefs. I'm just more to the point, whereas you try and hide behind so-called intellect.

In other words you can't hack logical debate. Don't worry, we've all known that for some time.

I've given you logical debate to show you for what you are, but of course you don't see it, accept it or contemplate that someone else could be right when it doesn't fit into your little world. It's no big deal, I've met a few like you.

I'm sure you have, they're called reasonable people and they're all around you... woooo!!!!

[Strangely Brown]

Gow3r said:

What I meant by point 1 is, you either believe it all or none of it....some of it cannot be the word of God and some it not. Ok?

Right. Got it.

Gow3r said:

Secondly what I meant by that point is, we all live to serve or worship different things....but I am not claiming the BIble is one of those things as it is authored by God, ok written by human hands but inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Right. Got it.

Gow3r said:

I have no doubt you will agree with my first point ...

Yup. Got it.

Now, if it is ALL the unalterable word of God, direct from the man himself, then, presumably, you disagree with the proceedings of the council of Mycenae and accept all of the bits that they threw out as the unalterable, revealed word of God too?


Edit to correct quoting.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Tuesday 1st May 12:44

[mattnunn]

TheHeretic said:

I do not agree with your question anyway. What YOU understand about the cosmos, the rulesin that cosmos, and the things that are here as a result of those rules, has no bearing whatsoever on me being an atheist, anti-theist, or anything in between.

I think it does, because what I understand of the primordial pre atomised universe, is a (very small) subset of what the egg heads believe, the clever folk who can do the maths, people like Krauss and Hawkings and Deepak Chopra.

You've already accepted that left to your own devices, a fully belly and a warm fire, you'd turn to God as the answer.

So by nature you're not atheist, you're atheist by belief or conviction.

I want to address this repeated line that there is no dogma to atheism, that it is not a system of belief, because it is.

I can fully grasp the argument around anti theism - although it's wrong at lot of the time and historically innacurate. But to deny the possibility of a creator, when the evidence would suggest that we just don't know, to call yourself an atheist without any evidence that a creator doesn't exist, is, by all logic and rational, a simple belief system.

[Justayellowbadge]

mattnunn said:

I can fully grasp the argument around anti theism - although it's wrong at lot of the time and historically innacurate. But to deny the possibility of a creator, when the evidence would suggest that we just don't know, to call yourself an atheist without any evidence that a creator doesn't exist, is, by all logic and rational, a simple belief system.

So utterly wrong.

[carmonk]

No, it's far more wrong than utterly wrong. Utterly wrong is right compared to the wrongness of that statement.

[Gow3r]

Strangely Brown said:

Gow3r said:

What I meant by point 1 is, you either believe it all or none of it....some of it cannot be the word of God and some it not. Ok?

Right. Got it.

Gow3r said:

Secondly what I meant by that point is, we all live to serve or worship different things....but I am not claiming the BIble is one of those things as it is authored by God, ok written by human hands but inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Right. Got it.

Gow3r said:

I have no doubt you will agree with my first point ...

Yup. Got it.

Now, if it is ALL the unalterable word of God, direct from the man himself, then, presumably, you disagree with the proceedings of the council of Mycenae and accept all of the bits that they threw out as the unalterable, revealed word of God too?


Edit to correct quoting.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Tuesday 1st May 12:44

Again words into mouth, I said what we know as the Bible is the revealed word of God, not the rest of it, not the Catholic Bible, not the Gospel of Thomas and God is not a man! I am aware of the canonizing of scripture for example The First Council of Nicaea. But not the council of Mycenae? When where, who how?

Surely all was done in canonizing scripture Definitions and Test for Canonicity

Canon originally meant "a straight rod" or a "measuring stick."

1. Authorship - A book had to be written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle. For example, Mark was not an apostle, but was a close associate of the Apostle Peter.

2. Nature of the Book - Does the message of the book agree with the content of divine revelation in the Old Testament? Does the book reflect the character of the person and work of Jesus Christ and agree with the existing apostolic writing?

3. Universality - Is the book being read and practiced in the churches throughout the Body of Christ? This criterion addresses the degree to which the people of God recognize and accept the authority of the book under consideration.

4. Inspiration - The word inspiration literally means "God-breathed." Does the book have a spiritual character that agree with the Holy Spirit who indwells all believers?

[mattnunn]

Justayellowbadge said:

mattnunn said:

I can fully grasp the argument around anti theism - although it's wrong at lot of the time and historically innacurate. But to deny the possibility of a creator, when the evidence would suggest that we just don't know, to call yourself an atheist without any evidence that a creator doesn't exist, is, by all logic and rational, a simple belief system.

So utterly wrong.

Oh yeah I see your point, how very undogmatic and rationally put. It's this level of poignant decisive commentary that I have come to love of piston heads.

[Strangely Brown]

Gow3r said:

I am aware of the canonizing of scripture for example The First Council of Nicaea. But not the council of Mycenae? When where, who how?

Sorry, my mistake. I meant the Council of Nicea. Not Mycenae.